Home Articles List Article Information
Alexandria Dental Journal
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 49 (2024)
Volume Volume 48 (2023)
Volume Volume 47 (2022)
Volume Volume 46 (2021)
Issue Issue 3
A (Oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral medicine, periodontology, oral radiology, oral pathology, oral biology)
Issue Issue 3
B (Endodontics, Prosthodontics, Fixed prosthodontics, Conservative dentistry, Dental Biomaterials)
Issue Issue 3
C (Pediatric dentistry, Dental public health, Orthodontics)
Issue Issue 2
A (Oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral medicine, periodontology, oral radiology, oral pathology, oral biology)
Issue Issue 2
B (Endodontics, Prosthodontics, Fixed prosthodontics, Conservative dentistry, Dental Biomaterials)
Issue Issue 2
C (Pediatric dentistry, Dental public health, Orthodontics)
Issue Issue 1
A (Oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral medicine, periodontology, oral radiology, oral pathology, oral biology)
Issue Issue 1
B (Endodontics, Prosthodontics, Fixed prosthodontics, Conservative dentistry, Dental Biomaterials)
Issue Issue 1
C (Pediatric dentistry, Dental public health, Orthodontics)
Volume Volume 45 (2020)
Volume Volume 44 (2019)
Volume Volume 43 (2018)
Volume Volume 42 (2017)
Volume Volume 41 (2016)
Volume Volume 40 (2015)
Elsoukary, A., Leheta, N., Mokhless, N. (2021). CLEANING EFFICIENCY OF XP ENDOFINISHER R VERSUS SONIC IRRIGATION AFTER RETREATMENT (S.E.M IN VITRO STUDY). Alexandria Dental Journal, 46(3), 92-96. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.29391.1065
Ahmed Elsoukary; Nihal Leheta; Nayera Mokhless. "CLEANING EFFICIENCY OF XP ENDOFINISHER R VERSUS SONIC IRRIGATION AFTER RETREATMENT (S.E.M IN VITRO STUDY)". Alexandria Dental Journal, 46, 3, 2021, 92-96. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.29391.1065
Elsoukary, A., Leheta, N., Mokhless, N. (2021). 'CLEANING EFFICIENCY OF XP ENDOFINISHER R VERSUS SONIC IRRIGATION AFTER RETREATMENT (S.E.M IN VITRO STUDY)', Alexandria Dental Journal, 46(3), pp. 92-96. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.29391.1065
Elsoukary, A., Leheta, N., Mokhless, N. CLEANING EFFICIENCY OF XP ENDOFINISHER R VERSUS SONIC IRRIGATION AFTER RETREATMENT (S.E.M IN VITRO STUDY). Alexandria Dental Journal, 2021; 46(3): 92-96. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.29391.1065

CLEANING EFFICIENCY OF XP ENDOFINISHER R VERSUS SONIC IRRIGATION AFTER RETREATMENT (S.E.M IN VITRO STUDY)

Article 2, Volume 46, Issue 3, December 2021, Page 92-96  XML PDF (861 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.29391.1065
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Ahmed Elsoukary email 1; Nihal Leheta2; Nayera Mokhless2
1BSc, Faculty of Dentistry - Alexandria University
2Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt
Abstract
Introduction: Non-surgical endodontic treatment is the best way to re-establish sound periapical tissues after reinfection or inefficient treatment of a previously obturated teeth due to apical or coronal leakage. It requires regaining the accessibility to the root canal system by removing the initial root canal filling, more cleaning, and reobturation.
The aim of the study: Is to compare the cleaning productivity of the XP Endo Finisher R (XPR) and the Endo Activator (EA) after retreatment using the scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Material and Methods: This study was performed on forty-five mesiobuccal canals of mandibular first molars. All teeth were obturated then retreated using D-Race rotary files. Teeth were haphazardly divided into three groups according to the cleaning method used: Group (1): XPR. Group (2): EA. Group (3): control group (no final cleaning). All the teeth were sectioned longitudinally and canal cleaning ability was assessed by the SEM. Data were statistically analyzed using Chi-Square and Kruskal Wallis tests.
Results: Significant differences in the smear layer and debris removal between both XPR and EA groups and the control group were detected (P<0.05).
Conclusions: The XPR and the EA are both efficient in removing the debris and the smear layer after retreatment. Moreover, the XPR performed better than the EA. None of the investigated techniques were able to totally remove the filling material.
Keywords: Retreatment, XP Endo Finisher R, Endo Activator, Scanning Electron Microscope.
Running title: XPR versus EA after retreatment.
Keywords
Retreatment; XP Endo Finisher R; Endo Activator; Scanning Electron Microscope
Main Subjects
Endodontics
References
  1. Yadav P, Bharath MJ, Sahadev CK, Makonahalli Ramachandra PK, Rao Y, Ali A, et al. An in vitro CT comparison of gutta-percha removal with two rotary systems and hedstrom files. Iran Endod J. 2013;8:59–64.
  2. Mali S, Patil A, Hegde D, Jaiswal H, Saoji H, Edake DN. Efficacy of rotary and hand instrument in removing gutta-percha and sealer from root canals of endodontically treated teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19:964–8.
  3. Bedier MM, Hashem AAR, Hassan YM. Improved dentin disinfection by combining different-geometry rotary nickel-titanium files in preparing root canals. Restor Dent Endod. 2018;43:e46.
  4. De-Deus G, Belladonna FG, Zuolo AS, Cavalcante DM, Carvalhal JCA, Simões-Carvalho M, et al. XP-endo Finisher R instrument optimizes the removal of root filling remnants in oval-shaped canals. Int Endod J. 2019;52:899–907.
    dönmez özkan H, Kaval M, Özkan G, Özer S. Efficacy of two different nickel-titanium rotary systems in retreatment procedure with or without laser-activated irrigation: An in vitro study. Photomed Laser Surg. 2019;37:495-9.
  5. dönmez özkan H, Kaval M, Özkan G, Özer S. Efficacy of two different nickel-titanium rotary systems in retreatment procedure with or without laser-activated irrigation: An in vitro study. Photomed Laser Surg. 2019;37:495-9.
  6. Nair U, Natera M, Koscso K, Pillai P, Varella C, Pileggi R. Comparative evaluation of three different irrigation activation on debris removal from root canal systems. J. Dent. Sci.. 2011;57.
  7. Alzuabi MA, Abiad R. Ability of of XP-Endo Finisher and XP-Endo Finisher-R in removal of debris from the root canal walls after retreatment: An in-vitro study. Int Arab J Dent. 2018;9:61-4.
  8. Alturaiki S, Lamphon H, Edrees H, Ahlquist M. Efficacy of 3 different irrigation systems on removal of calcium hydroxide from the root canal: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2015;41:97–101.
    Vertucci FJ. Root canal anatomy of the human permanent teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1984;58:589
  9. Vertucci FJ. Root canal anatomy of the human permanent teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1984;58:589–99.
  10. Günday M, Sazak H, Garip Y. A comparative study of three different root canal curvature measurement techniques and measuring the canal access angle in curved canals. J Endod. 2005;31:796–8.
  11. Ozyurek T. Comparison of the smear layer removal ability of four different final activation techniques after retreatment procedures: a SEM investigation. Turk Endod J. 2017;2:10-6.
  12. Srinivasan R, Ashwathappa GS, Junjanna P, Bhandary S, Aswathanarayana RM, Shetty A. Evaluation of smear layer removal from ultrasonically prepared retrocavities by three agents. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17:330–4.
  13. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22:276–82.
  14. Hammad M, Qualtrough A, Silikas N. Three-dimensional evaluation of effectiveness of hand and rotary instrumentation for retreatment of canals filled with different materials. J Endod. 2008;34:1370–3.
  15. Unal GC, Kaya BU, Taç AG, Keçeci AD. A comparison of the efficacy of conventional and new retreatment instruments to remove gutta-percha in curved root canals: an ex vivo study. Int Endod J. 2009;42:344–50.
  16. Ersev H, Yilmaz B, Dinçol ME, Dağlaroğlu R. The efficacy of ProTaper Universal rotary retreatment instrumentation to remove single gutta-percha cones cemented with several endodontic sealers. Int Endod J. 2012;45:756–62.
  17. Campello AF, Almeida BM, Franzoni MA, Alves FRF, Marceliano-Alves MF, Rôças IN, et al. Influence of solvent and a supplementary step with a finishing instrument on filling material removal from canals connected by an isthmus. Int Endod J. 2019;52:716–24.
  18. Dadresanfar B, Iranmanesh M, Mohebbi P, Vatanpour M. Efficacy of two rotary NiTi instruments in removal of resilon/epiphany obturants. Iran Endod J. 2012;7:183.
  19. Khedmat S, Azari A, Shamshiri AR, Fadae M, Bashizadeh Fakhar H. Efficacy of ProTaper and Mtwo Retreatment Files in Removal of Gutta-percha and GuttaFlow from Root Canals. Iran Endod J. 2016;11:184–7.
  20. Talal T, al-zaka I. Efficacy of XP-endo Finisher, XP-endo Finisher R, CanalBrush and endoactivator in the removal of intracanal medicament (An in vitro study). Int. J. Sci.. 2018;8:919–28.
  21. Silva EJNL, Belladonna FG, Zuolo AS, Rodrigues E, Ehrhardt IC, Souza EM, et al. Effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher and XP-endo Finisher R in removing root filling remnants: a micro-CT study. Int Endod J. 2018;51:86–91.
  22. Machado AG, Guilherme BPS, Provenzano JC, Marceliano-Alves MF, Gonçalves LS, Siqueira JF, et al. Effects of preparation with the Self-Adjusting File, TRUShape and XP-endo Shaper systems, and a supplementary step with XP-endo Finisher R on filling material removal during retreatment of mandibular molar canals. Int Endod J. 2019;52:709–15.
Statistics
Article View: 392
PDF Download: 579