Background. One of the most important aims of an endodontic treatment is to obtain the complete removal or reduction of root canal remaining filling material: Smear layer, bacteria, intra-canal medicaments. To meet this requirement, several irrigation activation techniques have been proposed. Our systematic review examined studies which analyzed the XP-endo Finisher (XPF) instrument efficacy in removing root canal debris during initial endodontic treatment or retreatment, comparing it with the efficacy of other irrigation activation protocols, such as passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), laser activation procedure (Er:YAG), and Self-Adjusting File system (SAF). Methods. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Chocrane Library, and Scopus databases, identifying 51 items. Thirty-four articles were excluded based on title, abstract, full text, and language. Seventeen randomized controlled trials were selected and consequently submitted to quality assessment and data collection. Results. Conventional needle irrigation (CNI) is the less effective irrigation technique, but it is still unclear whether XPF is able to guarantee greater debris removal than the PUI technique. Er:YAG laser has been proven to be more effective in apical third than XPF instrument. Conclusions. Further investigations are needed in order to establish which final irrigation activation procedure could reach the maximum root canal debris reduction.

Cleaning efficacy of the XP-endo® finisher instrument compared to other irrigation activation procedures : A systematic review / D. Lauritano, G. Moreo, F. Carinci, F.D. Vella, F. Di Spirito, L. Sbordone, M. Petruzzi. - In: APPLIED SCIENCES. - ISSN 2076-3417. - 9:23(2019), pp. 5001.1-5001.13. [10.3390/app9235001]

Cleaning efficacy of the XP-endo® finisher instrument compared to other irrigation activation procedures : A systematic review

G. Moreo;
2019

Abstract

Background. One of the most important aims of an endodontic treatment is to obtain the complete removal or reduction of root canal remaining filling material: Smear layer, bacteria, intra-canal medicaments. To meet this requirement, several irrigation activation techniques have been proposed. Our systematic review examined studies which analyzed the XP-endo Finisher (XPF) instrument efficacy in removing root canal debris during initial endodontic treatment or retreatment, comparing it with the efficacy of other irrigation activation protocols, such as passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), laser activation procedure (Er:YAG), and Self-Adjusting File system (SAF). Methods. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Chocrane Library, and Scopus databases, identifying 51 items. Thirty-four articles were excluded based on title, abstract, full text, and language. Seventeen randomized controlled trials were selected and consequently submitted to quality assessment and data collection. Results. Conventional needle irrigation (CNI) is the less effective irrigation technique, but it is still unclear whether XPF is able to guarantee greater debris removal than the PUI technique. Er:YAG laser has been proven to be more effective in apical third than XPF instrument. Conclusions. Further investigations are needed in order to establish which final irrigation activation procedure could reach the maximum root canal debris reduction.
Irrigation activation protocols; XP-endo Finisher; XP-endo Finisher effectiveness
Settore MED/28 - Malattie Odontostomatologiche
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
XP-ENDO FINISHER.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 403.96 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
403.96 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2434/901142
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 22
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 36
social impact