e-ISSN 2459-1726
Is SWEEPS (Laser assisted irrigation) better than Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation and XP-Endo Finisher?-An in vitro study [Turk Endod J]
Turk Endod J. Ahead of Print: TEJ-52297 | DOI: 10.14744/TEJ.2024.52297

Is SWEEPS (Laser assisted irrigation) better than Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation and XP-Endo Finisher?-An in vitro study

Yelda Erdem Hepşenoğlu1, Sertan Fındıkçı1, Şeyda Erşahan1, Mete Üngör1, Ali Keleş2, Mustafa Gündoğar1, Melis Oya Ateş2, Celalettin Topbaş3
1Department of Endodontics, İstanbul Medipol University Faculty of Dentistry, İstanbul, Türkiye
2Department of Endodontics, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Dentistry, Bolu, Türkiye
3Department of Endodontics, Sağlık Bilimleri University Faculty of Dentistry, İstanbul, Türkiye

Aim: The study's objective was to evaluate the efficiency of various irrigation activation methods for removing gutta-percha and sealer using micro-CT and SEM after retreatment with rotary files.
Methodology: 21 permanent single-rooted teeth that were extracted and had a single canal were decoronated to 16 mm length. AH Plus sealer was used for obturating root canals. Following obturation, micro-CT scanning was carried out (S1). Another micro-CT scan was performed following the elimination of the original filling material utilizing ProTaper universal retreatment files (S2). Next, each of the 21 samples was split up into three groups (n = 7). Group1: XP-Endo Finisher Group 2: Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI), Group 3: SWEEPS. Subsequent irrigation activation technique by one of each system was followed by the final Micro-CT scanning (S3). After calculating the remnant volume of the filling material, a single specimen was examined under a scanning electron microscope for every group. Utilizing the Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U tests, statistical evaluation was accomplished.
Results: After analyzing the samples, S1 and S2 scanning results revealed no statistically significant differences among the three groups (p>0.05). Furthermore, no significant difference in the final volume of residual filling material (S3) between the three groups was found statistically.
Conclusion: In summary, XPF, PUI and SWEEPS techniques are just as efficient at removing remnant filling materials after conventional retreatments.

Keywords: Laser activated irrigation, Micro-CT, Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation, root canal retreatment, SWEEPS, XP-Endo Finisher.



Corresponding Author: Sertan Fındıkçı, Türkiye
Manuscript Language: English
LookUs & Online Makale