Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 12, 2025
Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Surface Defects of Remover Retreatment File After Single and Multiple Uses
Published on: October 11, 2024
Debris and Smear Layer Removal from Oval Root Canals Comparing XP-Endo Finisher, EndoActivator, and Manual
Asmaa Alakshar1, Abdul Rahman Mohammed Saleh1, Mehmet Omer Gorduysus2
1Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates.
Objective:
This study aimed to assess and compare XP-Endo Finisher (XP) cleaning efficiency with respect to the amount of remaining debris and smear layer versus Max-I-Probe needle (CI), EndoActivator device (EA), and combination of XP-Endo Finisher file with EndoActivator device (XP+EA) in oval root canals.
Materials And Methods:
This in vitro study was performed on 36 extracted single root/canal mandibular premolars. Radiographic images were taken in buccolingual and mesiodistal projections to evaluate the shape of the root canal and determine whether it met exclusion criteria. All teeth were decoronated and prepared using Reciproc (R40). The samples were divided randomly into four groups: CI, EA, XP, and XP + EA. The root canals were irrigated with 5 mL of 17% EDTA and 2.5% NaOCl, respectively. Apart from the CI group, both solutions were activated by using the tested techniques for 1 minute.The teeth were split longitudinally, and the best visible identified sections of the roots were used as the representing samples for scanning electron microscope (SEM) evaluation. Each half was divided into the following three parts: 1 mm from the anatomic apex and a standardized photomicrograph with 500x and 1500x magnifications for debris and smear layer were obtained. A five-grade scoring system was utilized to quantify the results at the coronal, middle, and apical regions. Statistical analysis was performed by using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.
Results:
Group differences in debris and smear layer scores were found statistically significant for all locations as well as for overall assessment, except for the coronal third. Intragroup comparison of debris and smear layer in CI, EA, and XP had the minimum score at the middle third, with no significant difference compared with the coronal and apical thirds. XP + EA had less debris and smear layer score at the coronal third, significantly different from apical third.CI and EA had less debris and smear layer compared with XP and XP + EA at all locations with a significant difference at the middle and apical third (p < 0.05).
Conclusion:
EA and CI showed less debris and smear layer than XP and XP + EA in the middle and apical third. The use of the XP in conjunction with the present irrigation protocol failed to have debris-free dentin surface in the apical portion of most of the root canals.
