Irrigant Agitation Techniques versus Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation for Removing Debris from Curved Root Canals: An...

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) versus mechanical agitation of the irrigant promoted by the EasyClean (EC) and XP-Endo Finisher (XP-F) systems in removing debris from root canal walls, using environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM).

Twelve curved mesiobuccal canals of mandibular molars were prepared with the ProTaper Next system up to file X2 (25/0.06). The specimens were embedded in flasks containing silicone putty, sectioned lengthwise, and a 4-mm long groove was made on the canal wall of the buccal half of the specimen, extending from 2 mm up to 6 mm short of the apex. Five cross-sectional markings were made along this groove to establish standardized locations for imaging. The same specimens were used to prepare a negative control group (without debris), a positive control group (completely covered by debris), and 3 experimental groups according to the final irrigation protocol employed: PUI, EC or XP-F. ESEM images were obtained and evaluated by 3 examiners. The amount of debris observed on the images was classified according to a 4-category scoring system. The kappa test was used to assess inter-examiner agreement, and the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests were used to compare the scores (P<0.05).

The scores attributed to the PUI, EC, and XP-F groups were statistically similar to those attributed to the negative control group (P>0.05).

Based on this in-vitro study, the mechanical agitation of the irrigant promoted by EC and XP-F was as effective as using PUI to remove debris from the root canal walls.