Efficacy of XP-Endo Finisher and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation on Modified Triple Antibiotic Paste Removal

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare conventional needle irrigation (CNI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and XP-endo Finisher (XPF) techniques in terms of modified triple antibiotic paste (mTAP) removal. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 mandibular premolars were instrumented to a size F3 file. A mixture of mTAP was prepared by mixing 3 antibiotics, including 250 mg ciprofloxacin, 250 mg metronidazole, and 150 mg clindamycin, with 1 ml distilled water and applied into the root canals. The teeth were allocated into 3 equal groups, irrigation/agitation was performed and teeth were divided into two halves. The removal of mTAP was evaluated with a scanning electron microscope by using the 4 grade scoring system. Results: In the apical thirds, significant difference was found between PUI and CNI groups (p<0.05), whilst no significant difference was found among the other irrigation activation regimens (p> 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between all groups in the middle third. In the coronal thirds, XPF removed significantly more mTAP than the CNI group (p<0.05). However, no difference was recorded among other groups (p>0.05). Conclusions: Passive ultrasonic irrigation and XPF file agitation demonstrated superior efficacy in removing mTAP from root canals compared to CNI.

Efficacy of EDDY, ultrasonic activation, XP‐endo Finisher and needle irrigation on the removal of mTAP from artificially created grooves in root canals

“…One of these is the XP-endo Finisher (FKG Dentaire SA, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland), which is a non-tapered file with a small core, size 25, based on nickel titanium (NiTi) alloy shape memory principles. This finisher was developed for use after any root canal preparation of size 25 or more to clear extremely complicated areas and sections that are tough to access, as well as to eliminate intracanal medications (11).…”

Effectiveness of XP-Endo Finisher and passive ultrasonic irrigation on intracanal medicament removal from root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Then, a total of 18 articles underwent a full-text screening. In this phase, nine [ 14 , 20 , 65 – 71 ] studies were excluded for the following reasons: five [ 14 , 65 , 68 , 70 , 71 ] lacked a comparison of medicament removal efficacy between the PUI group and XPF group, and four [ 20 , 66 , 67 , 69 ] did not evaluate outcomes according to the scoring system described by Lee et al or van der Sluis et al Finally, nine articles were included in the present systematic review and processed to data extraction [ 26 , 29 – 33 , 72 – 74 ]. Among the nine studies included for qualitative synthesis, one was not appropriate for the quantitative synthesis, because it just presented the minimum and maximum of the scoring results in the PUI and XPF group [ 26 ].…”

“…Then, a total of 18 articles underwent a full-text screening. In this phase, nine [14,20,[65][66][67][68][69][70][71] [72][73][74]. Among the nine studies included for qualitative synthesis, one was not appropriate for the quantitative synthesis, because it just presented the minimum and maximum of the scoring results in the PUI and XPF group [26].…”

“…studies were excluded for the following reasons: five[14,65,68,70,71] lacked a comparison of medicament removal efficacy between the PUI group and XPF group, and four[20,66,67,69] did not evaluate outcomes according to the scoring system described by Lee et al or van der Sluis et al Finally, nine articles were included in the present systematic review and processed to data extraction[26, 29-33, …”

Effectiveness of XP-Endo Finisher and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation on Intracanal Medicament Removal From Root Canals: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…Then, a total of 18 articles underwent a full-text screening. In this phase, nine [15,21,[66][67][68][69][70][71][72] studies were excluded for the following reasons: ve [15,66,69,71,72] lacked a comparison of medicament removal e cacy between the PUI group and XPF group, and four [21,67,68,70] did not evaluate outcomes according to the scoring system described by Lee et al or van der Sluis et al Finally, nine articles were included in the present systematic review and processed to data extraction [27,[30][31][32][33][34][73][74][75]. Among the nine studies included for qualitative synthesis, one was not appropriate for the quantitative synthesis, because it just presented the minimum and maximum of the scoring results in the PUI and XPF group [27].…”