الفهرس 
Review of literatureOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 123 |  |  |
| | | from | 123 | | |
Abstract
Removal of vital and necrotic remnants of pulp tissues, microorganisms, and microbial toxins from the root canal system is essential for endodontic success. Although this might be achieved through chemo-mechanical debridement, it is impossible to shape and clean the root canal completely because of the complex nature of root canal anatomy. Therefore, irrigation is an essential part of root canal debridement because it allows for cleaning beyond what might be achieved by root canal instrumentation alone. In addition to, different techniques and irrigant delivery devices have been proposed to increase the flow and distribution of irrigating solutions within the root canal system.
Our study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the XP-endo Finisher file on debris and smear layer removal in root canals in comparison with Apical Negative Pressure and Manual Dynamic Agitation after biomechanical instrumentation with either single or multiple filing systems.
Sixty human extracted mandibular premolar teeth were randomly divided according to agitation techniques used into three equal groups: (XP-endo Finisher), (EndoVac), (Manual Dynamic Agitation), and each group was further subdivided according to instrumentation systems used into two equal subgroups (One Shape #37/0.06) and (ProTaper Universal to size F4 #40/0.06). During instrumentation, 5.25% NaOCl was used between files with total irrigant volume standardized to 15ml in each root. The final flush was done using 5ml of (17% EDTA, 5.25% NaOCl, Saline) with total final flush irrigant volume standardized to 15 ml in each root with equal predetermined time. After final flush protocols were performed with different agitation techniques, all teeth were splitted longitudinally, one half evaluated at coronal, middle and apical thirds under Stereomicroscope (for debris) while the other half evaluated under Scanning electron microscope SEM (for smear layer).
Regarding remaining debris, Xp-endo Finisher showed significantly the lowest debris percent at all canal levels compared to Apical Negative Pressure and Manual Dynamic Agitation.
Single (One Shape) and multiple (ProTaper Universal) filing systems showed no significant difference, while when using Xp-endo Finisher; multiple (ProTaper Universal) filing system showed significant lower debris percent than single (One Shape) file system at all canal levels.
Coronal third showed the lowest debris percent compared with middle and apical thirds, although coronal and middle thirds showed no significant difference in Xp-endo Finisher group.
Regarding smear layer, Xp-endo Finisher and Apical Negative Pressure showed no significant difference at the middle and apical thirds, both showed lower smear layer scores than Manual Dynamic Agitation.
Single (One Shape) and multiple (ProTaper Universal) filing systems showed no significant difference in smear layer scores with all agitation techniques at all canal levels.
Coronal third showed the lowest smear layer score compared with middle and apical thirds, although coronal and middle thirds showed no significant difference in Apical Negative Pressure group.