Comparing the Efficacy of XP-endo Finisher with Irrigation Activation Methods on Sealer Penetration: An in Vitro Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy Study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2025
Comparing the Efficacy of XP-endo Finisher with Irrigation Activation Methods on Sealer Penetration: An in Vitro Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy Study
The irrigation method is effective on the dentinal tubule penetration (DTP) of endodontic pastes, which is important for treatment outcome. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of different irrigation techniques on the DTP of bioceramic endodontic paste with CLSM.
Materials and Methods:
A total of 52 mandibular premolar root canals were shaped with the ProTaper Next files and were divided randomly into four experimental groups (n = 13) according to the final irrigation method with 17% EDTA and 5.25% NaOCl as follows: Group 1: Conventional needle irrigation (CNI), Group 2: sonic activation (SA), Group 3: passive ultrasonic activation (PUA), Group 4: XP-endo Finisher (XPF). After final irrigation, root canals were obturated with a bioceramic sealer labeled with the fluorescent dye. The roots were sectioned horizontally at three different levels, and 1 ± 0.1 mm thick sections were obtained to examine under CLSM. The penetration area (PA), maximum tubule penetration (MTP), and the percentage of penetration (PP) values were statistically evaluated with the two-way repeated measurements ANOVA test. The Tukey (HSD) test was carried out for intergroup comparisons (p < .01). The relationship between the MTP, PP, and PA at each root level was evaluated using Pearson’s correlation test.
Results:
In the middle sections, the penetration area of the sealer was higher in the SA group (7.120 ± 1.470) compared to the other groups (p < .01). Penetration area was higher in the XPF group (11.830 ± 1.370) in the coronal section compared to CNI (7.034 ± 0.926) (p < .01). No significant difference was observed between the MTP and PP values of the experimental groups (p > .01). DTP of sealer was statistically similar for each irrigation method in the apical section. The coronal regions showed higher DTP values compared with the apical regions. There was a linear relationship between the PA and MTP values at all root levels of experimental groups (p < .05). The linear relationship between the PA and PP was not significant in the XP group (p > .05).
Conclusion:
The penetration area of SA was larger than others in the middle section, and XPF was superior to CNI in the coronal section. DTP of the sealer in the apical regions was lower than in the coronal regions.
MamootilK and MesserHH. Penetration of dentinal tubules by endodontic sealer cements in extracted teeth and in vivo. Int Endod J, 2007; 40(11): 873–881.
2.
BollesJA, HeJ, SvobodaKKH, . Comparison of vibringe, endoactivator, and needle irrigation on sealer penetration in extracted human teeth. J Endod, 2013; 39(5): 708–711.
3.
PetersOA, SchönenbergerK and LaibA.Effects of four Ni-Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. Int Endod J, 2001; 34(3): 221–230.
4.
KokkasAB, BoutsioukisAC, VassiliadisLP, . The influence of the smear layer on dentinal tubule penetration depth by three different root canal sealers: an in vitro study. J Endod, 2004; 30(2): 100–102.
5.
MoonYM, ShonWJ, BaekSH, . Effect of final irrigation regimen on sealer penetration in curved root canals. J Endod, 2010; 36(4): 732–736.
6.
SiqueiraJF and RôçasIN. Clinical implications and microbiology of bacterial persistence after treatment procedures. J Endod, 2008; 34(11): 1291–1301.
7.
de Souza MatosF, da SilvaFR, ParanhosLR, . The effect of 17% EDTA and QMiX ultrasonic activation on smear layer removal and sealer penetration: ex vivo study. Sci Rep, 2020; 10(1): 1–8.
8.
GeneraliL, CavaniF, SerenaV, . Effect of different irrigation systems on sealer penetration into dentinal tubules. J Endod, 2017; 43(4): 652–656. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.12.004
9.
GallerKM, GrubmüllerV, SchlichtingR, . Penetration depth of irrigants into root dentine after sonic, ultrasonic and photoacoustic activation. Int Endod J, 2019; 52(8): 1210–1217.
10.
BoutsioukisC, LambrianidisT and KastrinakisE.Irrigant flow within a prepared root canal using various flow rates: a computational fluid dynamics study. Int Endod J, 2009; 42(2): 144–155.
11.
TayFR, GuL-S, SchoeffelGJ, . Effect of vapor lock on root canal debridement by using a side-vented needle for positive-pressure irrigant delivery. J Endod, 2010; 36(4): 745–750.
12.
BoutsioukisC and Arias-MolizMT. Present status and future directions—irrigants and irrigation methods. Int Endod J, 2022; 55(S3): 588–612.
13.
ErkanE, GündoğarM, UsluG, . Postoperative pain after SWEEPS, PIPS, sonic and ultrasonic-assisted irrigation activation techniques: a randomized clinical trial. Odontology, 2022; 110(4): 786–794. doi: 10.1007/s10266-022-00700-0
14.
PereiraRP, BramanteCM, DuarteMAH, . Postoperative pain after using passive ultrasonic irrigation and easy clean device, irrigation activation techniques: a randomized clinical trial. J Endod, 2023; 49(6): 632–637.
15.
VirdeeSS, FarnellDJJ, SilvaMA, . The influence of irrigant activation, concentration and contact time on sodium hypochlorite penetration into root dentine: an ex vivo experiment. Int Endod J, 2020; 53(7): 986–997.
16.
GuL sha, KimJR, LingJ, . Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod, 2009; 35(6): 791–804. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.010
17.
CaronG, NhamK, BronnecF, . Effectiveness of different final irrigant activation protocols on smear layer removal in curved canals. J Endod, 2010; 36(8): 1361–1366. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.03.037
18.
Van Der SluisLWM, VersluisM, WuMK, . Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: a review of the literature. Int Endod J, 2007; 40(6): 415–426.
19.
JensenSA, WalkerTL, HutterJW, . Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of passive sonic activation and passive ultrasonic activation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod, 1999; 25(11): 735–738.
20.
NussteinJM. Endodontic sonic and ultrasonic irrigant activation. Clin Dent Rev, 2018; 2(1): 1–7. doi: 10.1007/s41894-018-0037-1
21.
De-DeusG, BelladonnaFG, de Siqueira ZuoloA, . Micro-CT comparison of XP-endo Finisher and passive ultrasonic irrigation as final irrigation protocols on the removal of accumulated hard-tissue debris from oval shaped-canals. Clin Oral Investig, 2019; 23(7): 3087–3093.
22.
ElnaghyAM, MandorahA and ElsakaSE. Effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher, EndoActivator, and File agitation on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a comparative study. Odontology, 2017; 105(2): 178–183.
23.
AtesAA, ArıcanB, ÇiftçioğluE, . Influence of different irrigation regimens on the dentinal tubule penetration of a bioceramic-based root canal sealer: a confocal analysis study. Lasers Med Sci, 2021; 36(8): 1771–1777.
24.
KeskinC, SariyilmazE and SariyilmazÖ. Efficacy of XP-endo finisher file in removing calcium hydroxide from simulated internal resorption cavity. J Endod, 2017; 43(1): 126–130.
25.
TropeM and GilbertoD. XP-3D FinisherTM file—the next step in restorative endodontics. Endod Pr, 2015; 8: 22–24.
26.
ChandraSS, ShankarP and IndiraR.Depth of penetration of four resin sealers into radicular dentinal tubules: a confocal microscopic study. J Endod, 2012; 38(10): 1412–1416. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.05.017
27.
Ordinola-ZapataR, BramanteCM, GraeffMSZ, . Depth and percentage of penetration of endodontic sealers into dentinal tubules after root canal obturation using a lateral compaction technique: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2009; 108(3): 450–457. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.04.024
28.
KimY, KimBS, KimYM, . The penetration ability of calcium silicate root canal sealers into dentinal tubules compared to conventional resin-based sealer: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Materials, 2019; 12(3): 531.
29.
GuY, PerinpanayagamH, KumDJW, . Effect of different agitation techniques on the penetration of irrigant and sealer into dentinal tubules. Photomed Laser Surg, 2017; 35(2): 71–77.
30.
ZancanRF, Di MaioA, TomsonPL, . The presence of smear layer affects the antimicrobial action of root canal sealers. Int Endod J, 2021; 54(8): 1369–1382.
31.
IandoloA, AbdellatifD, AmatoM, . Dentinal tubule penetration and root canal cleanliness following ultrasonic activation of intracanal-heated sodium hypochlorite. Aust Endod J, 2020; 46(2): 204–209.
32.
NeelakantanP, ChengCQ, MohanrajR, . Antibiofilm activity of three irrigation protocols activated by ultrasonic, diode laser or Er: YAG laser in vitro. Int Endod J, 2015; 48(6): 602–610.
33.
ZanR, TopçuoğluHS, Hubbezoğluİ, . Effect of different irrigation activation methods on non-infected dentinal tubule penetration of medicaments: a CLSM study. Niger J Clin Pract, 2022; 26(5): 895–902.
34.
AshkarI, SanzJL, FornerL, . Calcium silicate-based sealer bentinal tubule penetration—a systematic review of in vitro studies. Materials, 2023; 16(7): 2734.
35.
GharibSR, TordikPA, ImamuraGM, . A confocal laser scanning microscope ınvestigation of the epiphany obturation system. J Endod, 2007; 33(8): 957–961.
36.
TorabinejadM, HandysidesR, KhademiAA, . Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2002; 94(6): 658–666.
37.
ViolichDR and ChandlerNP. The smear layer in endodontics: a review. Int Endod J, 2010; 43(1): 2–15.
38.
OkşanT, AktenerBO, ŞenBH, . The penetration of root canal sealers into dentinai tubules. A scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J, 1993; 26(5): 301–305.
39.
UrbanK, DonnermeyerD, SchäferE, . Canal cleanliness using different irrigation activation systems: a SEM evaluation. Clin Oral Investig, 2017; 21(9): 2681–2687.
40.
El HachemR, Le BrunG, Le JeuneB, . Influence of the EndoActivator irrigation system on dentinal tubule penetration of a novel tricalcium silicate-based sealer. Dent J, 2018; 6(3): 45.
41.
YilmazA, YalcinTY and Helvacioglu-YigitD. Effectiveness of various final ırrigation techniques on sealer penetration in curved roots: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Biomed Res Int, 2020; 2020: 8060489.
42.
SrirekhaA, ShrivastavaP, VijayR, . Effect of apical preparation size and taper on ırrigant penetration in apical third of root canal using two different endodontic needles: an in vivo study. J Dent Oral Biol, 2017; 2(13): 1–6.
43.
ChenJE, NurbakhshB, LaytonG, . Irrigation dynamics associated with positive pressure, apical negative pressure and passive ultrasonic irrigations: a computational fluid dynamics analysis. Aust Endod J, 2014; 40(2): 54–60.
44.
CoşkunBaşoğlu E, KoçakS, ÖzdemirO, . Efficacy of various activation techniques on tubule penetration of resin-based and bioceramic root canal sealers: an in vitro confocal microscopy study. Aust Endod J, 2023; 49(S1): 381–389.
45.
AlaksharA, SalehARM and GorduysusMO. Debris and smear layer removal from oval root canals comparing XP-endo finisher, endoactivator, and manual irrigation: a SEM evaluation. Eur J Dent, 2020; 14(4): 626–633.
46.
MachadoR, CruzATG, de Mattos de AraujoBM, . Tubular dentin sealer penetration after different final irrigation protocols: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Microsc Res Tech, 2018; 81(6): 649–654.
47.
CarriganPJ, MorseDR, FurstML, . A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of human dentinal tubules according to age and location [Evaluacion por Medio del Microscopio Electronico de Barrido de los Tubulos Dentinarios Humanos de Acuerdo a la Edad y Localizacion]. J Endod, 1984; 10(8): 359–363.
48.
MjörIA, SmithMR, FerrariM, . The structure of dentine in the apical region of human teeth. Int Endod J, 2001; 34(5): 346–353.
49.
O’ConnellMS, MorganLA, BeelerWJ, . A comparative study of smear layer removal using different salts of EDTA. J Endod, 2000; 26(12): 739–743.
50.
YesildalYeter K, GunesB and SekerB.The effect of atmospheric cold plasma on the dentinal tubule penetration of calcium silicate-based sealer used with different obturation techniques: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Aust Endod J, 2022; 48(1): 151–157.
51.
PatelD V, SherriffM, FordTRP, . The penetration of RealSeal primer and Tubliseal into root canal dentinal tubules: a confocal microscopic study. Int Endod J, 2007; 40(1): 67–71.
52.
KelesA, Askerbeyli OrsS, PuraliN, . Effect of different sealer activation techniques on dentinal tubule penetration. Aust Endod J, 2023; 49(3): 470–475.
