Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher, EndoActivator, and File agitation on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a comparative study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Odontology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of the XP-endo Finisher (FKG Dentaire SA, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) file on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals in comparison to different irrigation regimens. Seventy-five freshly extracted human mandibular molar teeth with mesial root curved more than 20° were used in this study. The mesial root canals were mechanically prepared using the BT-Race rotary system (FKG Dentaire) and divided into five groups (n = 15) according to the following irrigation techniques: positive control, non-agitated, File agitation, XP-endo Finisher, and EndoActivator (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialities, Tulsa, OK, USA). Root canals were split longitudinally and evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. Five-grade scoring system was used to assess the presence of debris and smear layer at the coronal, middle, and apical regions. The XP-endo Finisher and EndoActivator groups revealed significantly lower debris and smear layer scores than the other groups at the coronal, middle, and apical regions (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between XP-endo Finisher and EndoActivator groups (P > 0.05). The apical region had higher debris and smear layer scores compared with the coronal regions in all groups (P < 0.05), except for the positive control group; there was no significant difference between the three regions of the root canal (P > 0.05). Irrigation of curved root canals using XP-endo Finisher and EndoActivator methods appears to be more effective on debris and smear layer removal than the other tested groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Metzger Z, Teperovich E, Cohen R, Zary R, Paqué F, Hülsmann M. The self-adjusting file (SAF). Part 3: removal of debris and smear layer-A scanning electron microscope study. J Endod. 2010;36:697–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McComb D, Smith DC. A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod. 1975;1:238–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Byström A, Sundqvist G. Bacteriologic evaluation of the efficacy of mechanical root canal instrumentation in endodontic therapy. Scand J Dent Res. 1981;89:321–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Orstavik D, Haapasalo M. Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressings of experimentally infected dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1990;6:142–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kennedy WA, Walker WA 3rd, Gough RW. Smear layer removal effects on apical leakage. J Endod. 1986;12:21–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Saunders WP, Saunders EM. The effect of smear layer upon the coronal leakage of gutta-percha fillings and a glass ionomer sealer. Int Endod J. 1992;25:245–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shahravan A, Haghdoost AA, Adl A, Rahimi H, Shadifar F. Effect of smear layer on sealing ability of canal obturation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod. 2007;33:96–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod. 2006;32:389–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Carson KR, Goodell GG, McClanahan SB. Comparison of the antimicrobial activity of six irrigants on primary endodontic pathogens. J Endod. 2005;31:471–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Peters OA, Barbakow F. Effects of irrigation on debris and smear layer on canal walls prepared by two rotary techniques: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2000;26:6–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ciucchi B, Khettabi M, Holz J. The effectiveness of different endodontic irrigation procedures on the removal of the smear layer: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J. 1989;22:21–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Munoz HR, Camacho-Cuadra K. In vivo efficacy of three different endodontic irrigation systems for irrigant delivery to working length of mesial canals of mandibular molars. J Endod. 2012;38:445–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, Armellin E, Conte G, Cianconi L. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study. J Endod. 2013;39:1456–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, Choi KK, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod. 2009;35:791–804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Uroz-Torres D, González-Rodríguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. Effectiveness of the EndoActivator system in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation. J Endod. 2010;36:308–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Trope M, Debelian G. XP-3D Finisher™ file—the next step in restorative endodontics. Endod Pract US. 2015;8:22–4.

    Google Scholar 

  17. FKG Dentaire SA The XP-endo Finisher file Brochure. http://www.fkg.ch/sites/default/files/fkg_xp_endo_brochure_en_vb.pdf

  18. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971;32:271–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. da Costa Lima GA, Aguiar CM, Câmara AC, Alves LC, Dos Santos FA, do Nascimento AE. Comparison of smear layer removal using the Nd:YAG laser, ultrasound, ProTaper Universal system, and CanalBrush methods: an in vitro study. J Endol. 2015;41:400–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Caron G, Nham K, Bronnec F, Machtou P. Effectiveness of different final irrigant activation protocols on smear layer removal in curved canals. J Endod. 2010;36:1361–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hu X, Peng Y, Sum CP, Ling J. Effects of concentrations and exposure times of sodium hypochlorite on dentin deproteination: attenuated total reflection Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy study. J Endod. 2010;36:2008–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schirrmeister JF, Liebenow AL, Braun G, Wittmer A, Hellwig E, Al-Ahmad A. Detection and eradication of microorganisms in root-filled teeth associated with periradicular lesions: an in vivo study. J Endod. 2007;33:536–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rodig T, Dollmann S, Konietschke F, Drebenstedt S, Hulsmann M. Effectiveness of different irrigant agitation techniques on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Endod. 2010;36:1983–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Garip Y, Sazak H, Gunday M, Hatipoglu S. Evaluation of smear layer removal after use of a canal brush: an SEM study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010;110:e62–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. Effect of smear layer against disinfection protocols on Enterococcus faecalis-infected dentin. J Endod. 2013;39:1395–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Peeters HH, Suardita K. Efficacy of smear layer removal at the root tip by using ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and erbium, chromium: yttrium, scandium, gallium garnet laser. J Endod. 2011;37:1585–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Blank-Goncalves LM, Nabeshima CK, Martins GH, Machado ME. Qualitative analysis of the removal of the smear layer in the apical third of curved roots: conventional irrigation versus activation systems. J Endod. 2011;37:1268–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kamel WH, Kataia EM. Comparison of the efficacy of smear clear with and without a canal brush in smear layer and debris removal from instrumented root canal using WaveOne versus ProTaper: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2014;40:446–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rödig T, Döllmann S, Konietschke F, Drebenstedt S, Hülsmann M. Effectiveness of different irrigant agitation techniques on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Endod. 2010;36:1983–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sirtes G, Waltimo T, Schaetzle M, Zehnder M. The effects of temperature on sodium hypochlorite short-term stability, pulp dissolution capacity, and antimicrobial efficacy. J Endod. 2005;31:669–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. de Gregorio C, Estevez R, Cisneros R, Heilborn C, Cohenca N. Effect of EDTA, sonic, and ultrasonic activation on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals: an in vitro study. J Endod. 2009;35:891–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Blank-Gonçalves LM, Nabeshima CK, Martins GH, Machado ME. Qualitative analysis of the removal of the smear layer in the apical third of curved roots: conventional irrigation versus activation systems. J Endod. 2011;37:1268–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Khedmat S, Shokouhinejad N. Comparison of the efficacy of three chelating agents in smear layer removal. J Endod. 2008;34:599–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yang G, Wu H, Zheng Y, Zhang H, Li H, Zhou X. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of debris and smear layer remaining following use of ProTaper and Hero Shaper instruments in combination with NaOCl and EDTA irrigation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106:e63–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Schäfer E, Lohmann D. Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium FlexMaster instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part 2: Cleaning effectiveness and instrumentation results in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2002;35:514–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Khademi A, Yazdizadeh M, Feizianfard M. Determination of the minimum instrumentation size for penetration of irrigants to the apical third of root canal systems. J Endod. 2006;32:417–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Khademi A, Yazdizadeh M, Feizianfard M. Determination of the minimum instrumentation size for penetration of irrigants to the apical third of root canal systems. J Endod. 2006;32:417–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kuah HG, Lui JN, Tseng PS, Chen NN. The effect of EDTA with and without ultrasonics on removal of the smear layer. J Endod. 2009;35:393–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank FKG Dentaire SA for providing the materials used in this study. The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt

    Amr M. Elnaghy

  2. Dental Department, King Faisal Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

    Ayman Mandorah

  3. Department of Dental Biomaterials, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Shaymaa E. Elsaka

Authors
  1. Amr M. Elnaghy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ayman Mandorah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shaymaa E. Elsaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amr M. Elnaghy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elnaghy, A.M., Mandorah, A. & Elsaka, S.E. Effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher, EndoActivator, and File agitation on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a comparative study. Odontology 105, 178–183 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0251-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0251-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation