ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
Enhancing debris removal in curved canals: a comparative evaluation of XP-endo Finisher and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Sodium Hypochlorite Concentration and Final Irrigation Protocol on Residual Filling Material in Retreated Oval Root Canals Obturated with a Calcium Silicate-Based Sealer: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Dentinal Tubule Penetration of an Endodontic Sealer in the Apical Third of Root Canals After Different Final Irrigation Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of Various Root Canal Irrigation Techniques on Root Dentin Mechanical Properties: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Debris Removal from Mandibular Molars Using Different Irrigation Volumes and Ultrasonic Tips: Micro-CT Study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Characteristics and Effectiveness of XP-Endo Files and Systems: A Narrative Review.International journal of dentistry · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study aimed to compare the efficacy of XP-endo Finisher and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI) in removing hard tissue debris from curved canals. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-four mandibular molars with Vertucci's type II mesial canals were scanned in microcomputed tomography before and after preparation with HyFlex EDM, and accumulated hard tissue debris was quantified. Subsequently, the teeth were randomly divided into two groups according to the supplementary procedure: PUI with the Ultra-X insert or XP-endo Finisher. After the intervention, the specimens underwent another scanning. Two separate analyses were conducted, one for the total canal and another for the isthmus area. Unpaired and paired T-tests were used for inter- and intergroup comparisons, with a significance level set at 5%.
resultsBoth supplementary methods reduced the amount of debris compared to the initial volume. Remarkably, the XP-endo Finisher achieved a significantly higher percentage of debris removal (71% for the total canal and 74% for the isthmus areas) compared to PUI (41% for the total canal and 52% for the isthmus area) (P < 0.05).
conclusionsBoth supplementary approaches reduced the amount of hard tissue debris from canal preparation, still XP-endo Finisher showed a higher reduction compared to PUI (p < 0.05). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: None of the supplementary methods rendered canals completely free of hard tissue debris. However, the supplementary approach with XP-endo Finisher resulted in lower levels of hard tissue debris than PUI in curved canals with isthmuses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.