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

Purpose: 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.
Methods: Twenty-one permanent single-rooted teeth that were extracted and had a single canal were decoronated to a length of 16 mm. AH Plus sealer was used for obturating the 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 using ProTaper Universal retreatment files (S2). Next, each of the 21 samples was divided into three groups (n = 7): Group 1: XP-Endo Finisher (XPF); 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. Statistical evaluation was accomplished utilizing the Kruskal-Wallis and Shapiro-Wilk tests.
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 equally efficient at removing remnant filling materials after conventional retreatments.