Micro-CT comparison of XP-endo Finisher and passive ultrasonic irrigation as final irrigation protocols on the removal of accumulated hard-tissue debris from oval shaped-canals

De‐Deus, Gustavo; Belladonna, Felipe Gonçalves; Zuolo, Arthur de Siqueira; Pérez, Renata; Carvalho, Marco Simões; Souza, Erick Miranda; Lopes, Ricardo Tadeu; Silva, Emmanuel João Nogueira Leal

doi:10.1007/s00784-018-2729-y

Cited by 63 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…, De‐Deus et al . ). It is important to emphasize that unlike passive ultrasonic irrigation, the Clearsonic tip is not recommended for passive use, but for touching the root canals walls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Therefore, the third null hypothesis was accepted. Previous studies have already demonstrated the effectiveness of passive ultrasonic irrigation in reducing AHTD (Azim et al 2016, Leoni et al 2017, De-Deus et al 2019b. It is important to emphasize that unlike passive ultrasonic irrigation, the Clearsonic tip is not recommended for passive use, but for touching the root canals walls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Micro-CT technology was the analytic tool used in this study. This nondestructive method is based on an imaging technology that has been considered the gold-standard experimental model to assess several outcomes of root canal treatment as it allows a longitudinal track of the same specimen at different time points (Paqu e et al 2009, De-Deus et al 2015, 2019b, Azim et al 2016, Leoni et al 2017, Lopes et al 2018). In addition, the micro-CT approach was used to standardize the sample selection, ensuring comparability of the experimental groups at the baseline regarding root canal morphology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Arrowhead design ultrasonic tip as a supplementary tool for canal debridement

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To investigate the shaping and cleaning performance of the Clearsonic ultrasonic tip as a supplementary tool during the preparation of long oval‐shaped root canals through micro‐computed tomographic (micro‐CT) imaging technology. The Reciproc M‐Wire R40 instrument was used as a reference instrumentation technique for comparison. Methodology Twenty mandibular incisors with single, straight and long oval‐shaped canals were selected and pair‐matched by micro‐CT scanning. The root canals were prepared with Reciproc R25 and R40 instruments, scanned again in a micro‐CT device and randomly allocated into one of the two experimental groups (n = 10), according to the supplementary debridement protocol used: Clearsonic or Reciproc R40 used in a brushing motion against buccal and lingual walls. Noninstrumented canal areas, accumulation of hard‐tissue debris (AHTD) and volume of removed dentine were assessed using micro‐CT imaging following the supplementary debridement protocols. Data were analysed statistically in two phases using a t‐test with a significance level of 5%. Results In phase‐1, there was a significant similarity between the samples regarding the evaluated micro‐CT baseline parameters (P > 0.05), validating the anatomical similarity between the tooth pairs. In phase‐2, there was a significant difference between the groups for canal volume, surface area, noninstrumented root canal walls and the amount of removed dentine for both absolute and percentage values (P < 0.05), but not for AHTD (P = 0.759). Conclusions The Clearsonic tip outperformed the Reciproc R40 instrument as a supplementary debridement protocol as it was associated with significantly greater reduction of noninstrumented root canals walls and consequently a larger amount of removed dentine. Both groups performed similarly regarding the AHTD.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Arrowhead design ultrasonic tip as a supplementary tool for canal debridement

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All of the included researches recorded a lower cleaning performance of the standard needle procedure than the other irrigation methods ( Table 3). The root filling material mean reduction (bacteria, AHTD, and organic tissues) obtained with XPF was equal to 63.84% [5,10,19,20,23,26]. Conventional needle irrigation and PUI guaranteed a mean reduction of 44.82% [10,19,23] and 64.12% [5,10,19,20,23], respectively.…”

Section: Results Of Individual Studiesmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…According to six of the included studies, the XP-Endo Finisher instrument (XPF) showed a greater root canal cleaning efficacy than the passive ultrasonic irrigation technique (PUI) [5,[15][16][17][18][19]. On the contrary, seven articles stated that the passive ultrasonic irrigation technique and XP-Endo Finisher showed no significant differences among them in removing root filling material from canal root, and that both protocols have a greater efficacy than conventional needle irrigation procedure (CNI) [10,12,[20][21][22][23][24]. Gokturk et al demonstrated in his studies [4,25] that PUI and laser-activated irrigation (LAI) were more efficient than XPF and CanalBrush (CB).…”

Section: Results Of Individual Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleaning Efficacy of the XP-Endo® Finisher Instrument Compared to Other Irrigation Activation Procedures: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. One of the most important aims of an endodontic treatment is to obtain the complete removal or reduction of root canal remaining filling material: Smear layer, bacteria, intra-canal medicaments. To meet this requirement, several irrigation activation techniques have been proposed. Our systematic review examined studies which analyzed the XP-endo Finisher (XPF) instrument efficacy in removing root canal debris during initial endodontic treatment or retreatment, comparing it with the efficacy of other irrigation activation protocols, such as passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), laser activation procedure (Er:YAG), and Self-Adjusting File system (SAF). Methods. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Chocrane Library, and Scopus databases, identifying 51 items. Thirty-four articles were excluded based on title, abstract, full text, and language. Seventeen randomized controlled trials were selected and consequently submitted to quality assessment and data collection. Results. Conventional needle irrigation (CNI) is the less effective irrigation technique, but it is still unclear whether XPF is able to guarantee greater debris removal than the PUI technique. Er:YAG laser has been proven to be more effective in apical third than XPF instrument. Conclusions. Further investigations are needed in order to establish which final irrigation activation procedure could reach the maximum root canal debris reduction.

show abstract