XP-endo Finisher R instrument optimizes the removal of root filling remnants in oval-shaped canals.

AIM: To evaluate the performance of XP-endo Finisher R instruments when removing root filling remnants from oval-shaped canals using microcomputed tomographic (micro-CT) imaging as the analytical tool. Passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) was used as a reference technique for comparison. METHODOLOGY: Twenty mandibular incisors with oval-shaped canals were matched based on similar anatomic features of the canal (volume, aspect ratio and 3D configuration) after scanning procedures. The canals were prepared with Reciproc R25 instruments, filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer using the single-cone technique and retreated up to a Reciproc R40 instrument. After retreatment procedures, the specimens were rescanned, and the homogeneity between the specimens, the oval-shaped anatomy and the remaining filling material were confirmed. The pair-matched samples were assigned to two experimental groups (n = 10), according to the supplementary approach used: XP-endo Finisher R or PUI. Each sample was scanned after each endodontic procedure. The volume of remaining root filling material was quantified before and after the use of each supplementary approach. This analysis was performed considering the total canal (Student t-test) and also by thirds (anova procedure followed by a Bonferroni correction). Data were analysed statistically with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: The volume of root filling material at baseline was similar between the groups (t-test, P = 0.787). XP-endo Finisher R removed significantly more root filling material compared to PUI (t-test, P = 0.015), as it removed a mean of ≅32% material compared to 12% for the PUI. There was no difference in the amount of root filling material removed in the root canal thirds after using both supplementary approaches (one-way anova, P = 0.07 for XP-endo Finisher R and P = 0.886 for PUI). CONCLUSIONS: Both supplementary approaches significantly reduced the volume of remaining root filling material from oval-shaped canals. The XP-endo Finisher R instrument removed significantly more root filling material than PUI. None of the supplementary approaches was able to render oval-shaped canals completely free from remaining root filling material.

Effectiveness of Reciproc Blue in removing canal filling material and regaining apical patency.

AIM: To compare the efficiency of M-Wire Reciproc and Reciproc Blue instruments in the removal of root filling material and in their ability to regain apical patency through micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) analysis. METHODOLOGY: Ten anatomically matched pairs of teeth, with a single oval-shaped straight canal, were selected and scanned in a micro-CT device. The root canals were prepared with M-Wire Reciproc R25 instruments and filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer. The root canals were then randomly allocated into two groups (n = 10), according to the instrument used: M-Wire Reciproc and Reciproc Blue. The canals were retreated up to instrument sizes 25 and then 40 in both groups. The surface area and volume of residual filling material were assessed using micro-CT imaging after the retreatment procedures. The time required to remove the root fillings was recorded. Data were analysed statistically using t-test with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: No significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed between the instruments in terms of the volume of residual root filling material. Apical enlargement from size 25 to 40 significantly improved the removal of filling materials (P < 0.05). It was possible to regain apical patency in all specimens from both M-Wire Reciproc and Reciproc Blue groups. No difference was observed in the time required to perform the retreatment between the instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Both M-Wire Reciproc and Reciproc Blue instruments were effective in removing filling materials from oval-shaped straight canals. Apical patency was reestablished in all specimens.

Effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher and XP-endo Finisher R in removing root filling remnants: a micro-CT study.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of filling material removal from oval-shaped canals after the use of supplementary files (XP-endo Finisher and XP-endo Finisher R) through microcomputed tomographic (micro-CT) analysis. METHODOLOGY: The root canals of twenty maxillary single-rooted teeth were prepared with Reciproc R25 files and filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer using the continuous wave of condensation technique. The root canals were then retreated using Reciproc R25 and R40 instruments. After this, the specimens were assigned to two groups according to the supplementary cleaning approach, using XP-endo Finisher and XP-endo Finisher R. The surface area and volume of removed filling material was assessed using micro-CT imaging before and after the use of the XP-endo instruments. Data were analysed statistically with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: Removal of filling material at 66.8% and 59.4% in volume and 67.3% and 61.4% in surface area was seen for the XP-endo Finisher and the XP-endo Finisher R files, respectively. The amount of filling material removed by both supplementary files was highly significant (P = 0.000). No significant difference in the percentage of removed filling material was detected for the XP-endo instruments (P = 0.636 for volume and P = 0.667 for surface area). CONCLUSIONS: Both XP-endo files were equally effective in the removal of remaining filling material from straight oval-shaped canals. None of the instruments were able to remove all the residual filling material.

Efficacy of reciprocating and rotary techniques for removing filling material during root canal retreatment.

AIM: To compare the efficacy of reciprocating and rotary techniques with that of hand files for removing gutta-percha and sealer from root canals. METHODOLOGY: The root canals of fifty-four human extracted maxillary central incisors were cleaned and shaped using a crown-down technique to a size 40 and filled with gutta-percha and a zinc oxide-eugenol-based sealer using a lateral compaction technique. Teeth were divided into three groups according to the technique used for removing the root filling material: group I - Gates-Glidden burs and stainless steel hand files up to size 50; group II - rotary technique with NiTi Mtwo R files and additional Mtwo files to size 50, 0.04 taper; group III - reciprocating technique with the Reciproc instrument R50, size 50, 0.05 taper. Chloroform was used as a solvent in all groups. Teeth were then split longitudinally and photographed under 8× magnification. The images were transferred to a computer, and the total canal space and remaining filling material were quantified. The ratio of remaining filling material to root canal periphery was computed with the aid of Image Tool 3.0 software. The mean percentages of remaining filling material and time required to remove it were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The mean percentage of remaining filling material was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in group II, with Mtwo rotary files (12.17%), than in group I, with the hand file technique (7.19%), and group III, with Reciproc instruments (4.57%), which were statistically similar (P > 0.05). The time required to remove filling material was significantly shorter (P < 0.05) in group III (194 s), followed by group II (365 s) and group I (725 s) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Remaining endodontic filling material was observed on the canal walls of all teeth regardless of the technique used. Hand files combined with Gates-Glidden burs (group I) and the reciprocating technique (group III) removed more filling material from the canal walls than the Mtwo R files. The reciprocating technique was the most rapid method for removing gutta-percha and sealer, followed by the rotary technique and the hand file technique.