A COMPARATIVE LABORATORY STUDY OF THE CLEANING EFFICIENCY OF XP ENDO FINISHER AND SONIC IRRIGATION | ||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||
| Article 8, Volume 43, Issue 2, August 2018, Pages 46-50 PDF (391.98 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2018.57623 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Moshira I. Hammad* 1; Amr M. Abdallah2; Nihal A. Leheta3 | ||
| 1Resident dentist at the Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||
| 2Head of Conservative Dentistry Department and Professor of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||
| 3Lecturer of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| INTRODUCTION: Debridement of the root canal system is essential for endodontic success. Traditional instruments alone cannot sufficiently clean root canals. There must be an effective delivery system. OBJECTIVES: was to compare the cleaning efficiency of XP-endo Finisher and the EndoActivator using the scanning electron microscope. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sixty human mandibular first premolars with single oval canals were used in this study. Teeth were instrumented using One-Shape file. Teeth were then randomly divided into three parallel groups (n=20) according to the agitation method used; Group I: XP-endo Finisher. Group II: EndoActivator. Group III: both XP-endo Finisher and EndoActivator. Teeth were sectioned longitudinally and assessed by the scanning electron microscope using the five-score debris and smear layer indices. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, Friedman, and Dunn-Bonferroni tests. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between XP- endo Finisher and EndoActivator in debris and smear layer removal. In the middle segment, each of the XP-endo Finisher and EndoActivator revealed significantly lower debris scores than both together (P<0.05). In the coronal and apical segments the three groups equally cleaned debris (P>0.05). In smear layer removal, significant differences were found in both the coronal and apical segments between each one of the XP-endo Finisher and EndoActivator compared to both together (P<0.05). While in the middle segment, there were insignificant differences between the three groups in smear layer removal (P>0.05). The apical segment was more efficiently cleaned from debris and smear layer than the other segments in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Irrigation of root canals using XP-endo Finisher and EndoActivator solely was more effective in the removal of debris and smear layer than both used together. The apical third was more efficiently cleaned from debris and smear layer than the other segments. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| endodontics; Smear layer; Debris; XP-endo Finisher; EndoActivator; Scanning electron microscope | ||
| References | ||
|
1- Örstavik D, Ford T. Essential Endodontology: Prevention and Treatment of Apical Periodontitis, 2nd ed. NJ: Blackwell W Ltd; 2008:6-20.
2- Shilder H. Cleaning and Shaping the Root Canal. Dent Clin North Am. 1974; 18: 269–96.
3- Heard F, Walton R. Scanning Electron Microscope Study Comparing Four Root Canal Preparation Techniques in Small Curved Canals. Int Endod J. 1997; 30: 323–31.
4- Peters C, Barbakow F. Effect of Irrigation on Debris and Smear Layer on Canal Walls Prepared by Two Rotary Techniques: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study. J Endod. 2000; 25: 6–10.
5- Örstavik D, Haapasalo M. Disinfection by Endodontic Irrigants and Dressings of Experimentally Infected Dentinal Tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1990; 6: 142–9.
6- White R, Goldman M, Lin P. The Influence of the Smeared Layer upon Dentinal Tubule Penetration by Endodontic Filling Materials (part II). J Endod. 1987; 13: 369–74.
7- Kennedy W, Walker W, Gough R. Smear Layer Removal Effects on Apical Leakage. J Endod. 1986; 12: 21–7.
8- Saunders W, Saunders E. 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.
9- Hartmann M, Barletta F, Fontanella V, Vanni J. Canal Transportation after Root Canal Instrumentation: A Comparative Study with Computed Tomography. J Endod. 2007;33:962-5.
10- Iqbal M, Maggiore F, Suh B Edwards K, Kang J, Kim S. Comparison of Apical Transportation in Four Ni-Ti Rotary Instrumentation Techniques. J Endod. 2003;29:587–91.
11- Johnson E, Lloyd A, Kuttler S, Namerow K. Comparison between a Novel Nickel-Titanium Alloy and 508 Nitinol on the Cyclic Fatigue Life of ProFile 25/.04 Rotary Instruments. J Endod. 2008;34:1406-9.
12- Nielsen B, Baumgartner C. Comparison of the EndoVac System to Needle Irrigation of Root Canals. J Endod. 2007; 33: 611–5.
13- Van der Sluis L, Versluis M, Wu M, Wesselink P. Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation of the Root Canal: A Review of the Literature. Int Endod J. 2007; 40: 415–26
14- Ram Z. Effectiveness of Root Canal Irrigation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1977;44:306-12.
15- Uroz-Torres D, Gonzales-Rodriguez M, Ferrer-Luque C. Effectiveness of the EndoActivator System in Removing the Smear Layer after Root Canal Instrumentation. J Endod. 2010; 36:308-11.
16- Ruddle C. Endodontic Disinfection: Tsunami Irrigation. Endod Practice. 2008; 11:7-15.
17- Jensen S, Walker T, Hutter J, Nicoll B. Comparison of the Cleaning Efficacy of Passive Sonic Activation and Passive Ultrasonic Activation after Hand Instrumentation in Molar Root Canals. J Endod. 1999; 25: 735–8.
18- Hugo R, Karla C. 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.
19- Kuah H, Lui J, Tseng P, Chen N. The Effect of EDTA with and without Ultrasonics on Removal of the Smear Layer. J Endod. 2009; 35: 393–6.
20- Nielsen B, Baumgartner C. Comparison of the EndoVac System to Needle Irrigation of Root Canals. J Endod. 2007; 33: 611–5.
21- Hulsman M, Rummelin C, Schafers F. Root Canal Cleanliness after Preparation with Different Endodontic Handpieces and Hand Instruments: A Comparative SEM Investigation. J Endod. 1997; 23: 301-6.
22- Binkley S. An In- Vitro SEM Study Comparing the Debridement Efficacy of the EndoActivator System Versus the Ultrasonic Bypass System Following HandRotary Instrumentation. Master’s Thesis, Indiana Univ; 2010.
23- Klyn S, Kirkpatrick T, Rutledge R. In Vitro Comparisons of Debris Removal of the EndoActivatorTM System, the F FileTM, Ultrasonic Irrigation, and NaOCl Irrigation Alone after Handrotary Instrumentation in Human Mandibular Molars. J Endod. 2010;36:1367-71.
24- Kamel W, Kataia E. Comparison of the Efficacy of Smear Clear with and without a Canal Brush in Smear Layer and Debris Removal from Instrumented Root Canal Using Wave One Versus ProTaper: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study. J Endod. 2014;40:446– 50.
25- Yana Y. An In Vivo Comparative Study of the Penetration of Sodium Hypochlorite in Root Canal Systems During Cleaning and Shaping Procedures Using the B.U. Technique and Sonic Instrumentation. Master’s Thesis, Boston Univ; 1989.
26- Hu X, Peng Y, Sum CP, Ling J. Effects of Concentrations and Exposure Times of Sodium Hypochlorite on Dentin De-Proteination: Attenuated Total Reflection Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy Study. J Endod. 2010;36:2008–11.
27- Johnson W, Noblett W. Cleaning and Shaping in: Endodontics: Principles and Practice, 4th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2009: 12-50.
28- Trope M, Debelian G. XP-3D Finisher File - The Next Step in Restorative Endodontics. Endod Practice US. 2015; 8: 14-6.
29- Živković S, Nešković J, Jovanović-Medojević M, Popović-Bajić M, Živković-Sandić M. XP-endo Finisher: A New Solution for Smear Layer Removal. Serbian Dent J. 2015;62:314-78.
30- Lertchirakarn V, Palamara J, Messer H. Patterns of Vertical Root Fracture: Factors Affecting Stress Distribution in the Root Canal. J Endod. 2003;29:523-8.
31- Keleş A, Alcin H, Kamalak A, Versiani M. Ovalshaped Canal Retreatment with Self-Adjusting File: A Micro-Computed Tomography Study. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18:1147-53. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 276 PDF Download: 652 |
||
