3-dimensional Ability Assessment in Removing Root Filling Material from Pair-matched Oval-shaped Canals Using Thermal-treated Instruments.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of the XP-endo Shaper instrument (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) during the removal of root fillings from oval-shaped canals. M-Wire Reciproc and Reciproc Blue systems (VDW, Munich, Germany) were used as reference instruments for comparison, and micro-computed technology was used as an analytical tool. METHODS: Thirty mandibular incisors with oval-shaped canals were matched based on similar anatomic features of the canal (eg, volume, aspect ratio, and 3-dimensional configuration) after scanning procedures. The canals were prepared with M-Wire Reciproc R25 instruments and filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany) using the continuous wave of condensation technique. Then, the sample was allocated into 3 experimental groups (n = 10) according to the retreatment protocol used: M-Wire Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, and XP-endo Shaper. M-Wire Reciproc R25, Reciproc Blue R25, and XP-endo Shaper instruments were used to remove the root fillings. Apical enlargement was performed with M-Wire Reciproc R40, Reciproc Blue R40, and BioRace BR5 (FKG Dentaire) instruments. Each sample was scanned after each endodontic procedure. The volume of remaining root filling material was quantified before and after apical enlargement. The percentage volumes of root filling reduction in relation to the instrumented canals at both time points (before and after apical enlargement) were calculated and considered for statistical analysis. Data were analyzed statistically with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: Reciproc Blue presented significantly lower removal of filling material compared with the XP-endo Shaper (Tukey test, P < .05). No difference was detected either between M-Wire Reciproc and Reciproc Blue (Tukey test, P > .05) or M-Wire Reciproc and XP-endo Shaper (Tukey, P > .05). The increase of apical enlargement significantly improved the removal of root fillings from the root canals (P < .05); this effect was similar for all systems (time point × file system, P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The XP-endo Shaper instrument showed a higher percentage of root filling removal, but no differences were observed comparing M-Wire Reciproc with the XP-endo Shaper or Reciproc Blue. The increase of apical enlargement improved the removal of root fillings in all groups. None of them was able to render root canals completely free from root fillings.

Cyclic and Torsional Fatigue Resistance of XP-endo Shaper and TRUShape Instruments.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cyclic and torsional fatigue resistance of the XP-endo Shaper (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) and TRUShape (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) instruments. METHODS: Twenty XP-endo Shaper (30/0.01) instruments and 20 TRUShape (30/0.06v) instruments were used. Cyclic fatigue resistance was tested by measuring the number of cycles and time to fracture in an artificial stainless steel canal with a 60° angle and a 5-mm radius of curvature (n = 10). The torque and angle of rotation at failure of new instruments (n = 10) were measured according to ISO 3630-1. The fracture surface of all fragments was examined with a scanning electron microscope. Results were statistically analyzed using the Student t test at a significance level of P < .05. RESULTS: The XP-endo Shaper instruments showed a significantly longer number of cycles to fracture and time to failure in seconds than the TRUShape instruments (P < .05). The XP-endo Shaper also presented a lower maximum torque load (P < .05) but a significantly higher angular rotation to fracture than TRUShape (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The XP-endo Shaper instruments showed a higher cyclic fatigue resistance and angle of rotation to fracture but lower torque to failure than TRUShape instruments.