Publication:
Efficacy of XP-Endo Finisher File in Removing Calcium Hydroxide From Simulated Internal Resorption Cavity

dc.authorscopusid56471565700
dc.authorscopusid57184404700
dc.authorscopusid57192306768
dc.contributor.authorKeskin, C.
dc.contributor.authorSariyilmaz, E.
dc.contributor.authorSariyilmaz, Ö.
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T13:28:12Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T13:28:12Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-temp[Keskin] Cangül, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Sariyilmaz] Evren, Department of Endodontics, Ordu Üniversitesi, Ordu, Turkey; [Sariyilmaz] Öznur, Ordu Oral Health Clinics, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of supplementary use of XP-endo Finisher file, passive ultrasonic activation (PUI), EndoActivator (EA), and CanalBrush (CB) on the removal of calcium hydroxide (CH) paste from simulated internal resorption cavities. Methods The root canals of 110 extracted single-rooted teeth with straight canals were prepared up to size 50. The specimens were split longitudinally, and standardized internal resorption cavities were prepared with burs. The cavities and root canals were filled with CH paste. The specimens were divided into 5 groups as follows: XP-endo Finisher, EA, PUI, CB, and syringe irrigation (SI). The root canals were irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl and 17% EDTA for 2 minutes, respectively. Apart from the SI group, both solutions were activated by using tested techniques for 1 minute. The quantity of CH remnants on resorption cavities was scored. Data were analyzed by using Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results XP-endo Finisher and PUI removed significantly more CH than SI, EA, and CB (P < .05), showing no significant difference between them (P > .05). Differences among SI, EA, and CB were also non-significant (P > .05). Conclusions None of the tested techniques render the simulated internal resorption cavities free of CH debris. XP-endo Finisher and PUI were superior to SI, CB, and EA. © 2016 American Association of Endodontistsen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.joen.2016.09.009
dc.identifier.endpage130en_US
dc.identifier.issn0099-2399
dc.identifier.issn1878-3554
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.pmid27939736
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85003848746
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage126en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.09.009
dc.identifier.volume43en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000391246400019
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Inc. usjcs@elsevier.comen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Endodonticsen_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Endodonticsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectCalcium Hydroxideen_US
dc.subjectCanalBrushen_US
dc.subjectEndoActivatoren_US
dc.subjectPassive Ultrasonic Activationen_US
dc.subjectXP-Endo Finisheren_US
dc.titleEfficacy of XP-Endo Finisher File in Removing Calcium Hydroxide From Simulated Internal Resorption Cavityen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files