Aim: To evaluate cleaning efficacy and debris extrusion of supplementary file systems XP Endo Finisher (XPEF) and XP Endo Finisher R (XPEFR) in endodontic retreatment. Materials and Methods: Thirty single-rooted teeth with single canals were selected, canal preparation done till file #30 6% and obturation completed using lateral condensation technique with AH Plus sealer. The samples were stored at 37°C in a 100% humidity incubator for 7 days. The samples were distributed across the three groups according to the method of retreatment ( n = 10): Group I: Neo Endo retreatment (NER) files, Group II: NER files + XPEF, and Group III: NER files + XPEFR. Removal of gutta percha using each file system according to the distributed groups was performed. The extruded debris was collected in an Eppendorf tube, dried in a hot air oven, and weighed. Teeth were sliced longitudinally using carborundum discs. Coronal, middle, and apical thirds were assessed for cleaning efficacy under a stereomicroscope. Results were tabulated and subjected to the statistical analysis using the Kruskal–Wallis H -test followed by post hoc turkey HSD test. All statistical tests were carried out at significance level P < 0.05. Results: It was seen that Group II (NER files + XPEF) exhibited better cleaning efficacy than Group III (NER files + XPEFR), although the results were not statistically significant. Greater debris extrusion was seen with Group III when compared to Group II. Conclusion: Supplementary files XPEF/XPEFR enhance the cleaning efficacy in endodontic retreatment, but the debris extrusion of XPEFR is more than XPEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Agarwal et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: