Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 9, 2026

Quantitative Hardness Measurement by Instrumented AFM-indentation
Published on: November 22, 2016
Bacteria and Hard Tissue Debris Extrusion and Intracanal Bacterial Reduction Promoted by XP-endo Shaper and Reciproc
Flávio R F Alves1, Pâmella L Paiva1, Marília F Marceliano-Alves1
1Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Introduction:
This study used a multipurpose analytic approach to compare the levels of apically extruded bacterial and hard tissue debris as well as intracanal bacterial reduction after root canal preparation with either XP-endo Shaper (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) or Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) instruments.
Methods:
Distobuccal canals from extracted maxillary molars were contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis and randomly distributed into 2 groups according to the instrumentation system: the XP-endo Shaper or Reciproc. Teeth were mounted in an apparatus that simulates the apical resistance offered by the periapical tissues and permitted to collect debris extruded during preparation. Saline was used as the irrigant during preparation, and all treatment procedures were performed inside a cabinet under a controlled temperature of 37°C. DNA extracts from samples taken from the canal before and after preparation were subjected to quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction for E. faecalis counting. The volume of extruded debris was evaluated by micro-computed tomographic imaging. DNA was extracted from the extruded hard tissue debris and analyzed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction.
Results:
Mechanical intracanal bacterial reduction was significantly more pronounced when using the XP-endo Shaper (P < .001). Although both instruments produced a similar volume of extruded debris (P > .05), extruded bacteria counts were significantly lower with Reciproc than the XP-endo Shaper (P < .001). No correlation was observed between the extruded bacterial counts and debris volume.
Conclusions:
Although bacterial extrusion was lower with Reciproc, the intracanal bacterial reduction was higher with the XP-endo Shaper. Both techniques produced a similar volume of hard tissue debris extrusion.
Related Concept Videos
Bacterial Transformation
Griffith made an unexpected discovery when he killed the pathogenic strain and mixed its remains with the live, non-pathogenic strain. Not only did the mixture kill host mice, but it also contained living pathogenic bacteria that...
Factors Influencing Attraction IV: Reciprocity
Toughness and Hardness of Aggregate
The Eukaryotic Promoter Region
Oxidation-Reduction Reactions
Instrument Calibration
Analytical Balance Calibration
An analytical balance measures mass and requires regular calibration to...

