Effect of XP-Endo Finisher Rotary File on Removal of Smear Layer on the Root Canal Wall Using Different Rotary Files and Different Irrigants (An Ex- vivo Study)


  • Shaima O. Muhammed Conservative Department, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Author
  • Mewan S. Abdulrahman Conservative Department, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Author




One Curve file, Smear layer, XP-endo Finisher file, 2Shape file


Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of XP- endo finisher (XPF) in removing the residual smear layer as a final step following the use
of the One Curve and 2Shape files.

Methods: Sixty extracted maxillary first molar teeth with (MB) root curvature within (10-25°) were selected, and only (MB) roots
were used in this study. After that, the teeth were divided randomly according to the type of file used for canal preparation into two
main groups (1 and 2). Then the main groups were divided into three subgroups (A, B, and C). In subgroups A1, B1, and C1, the
2Shape file was used for canal preparation; in subgroups A2, B2, and C2, the One Curve file was used. In subgroups A1 and A2,
NaOCl was used during instrumentation and XPF to improve the residual smear layer removal with EDTA. In subgroups B1 and B2,
NaOCl was used during instrumentation, and EDTA was used for 1 min to remove the residual smear layer. In subgroups C1 and C2,
normal saline was used during instrumentation and with XPF. Then the roots were linearly sectioned into two parts. The coronal,
middle, and apical thirds were quantified for the remaining smear layer under the scanning electron microscope (SEM). The Kruskal– Wallis- test and Mann- Whitney U test were used to measure the subgroups' differences. All tests were performed at the significant (p < 0.05) level.

Results: The subgroup C1 had the highest mean score and lowest efficiency in removing the residual smear layer. The result showed that the subgroup A2 exhibited the best residual smear layer removal effectiveness. Significant differences were observed between subgroups A1 and A2 (p < 0.05). At the same time, there were significant differences between subgroups B1 and B2 (p < 0.05), and subgroups A2 and B2 exhibited significant differences from C2 (p < 0.05). Furthermore, significant differences were observed when subgroups C1 and C2 were compared to all the other subgroups (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Using the One Curve file with NaOCl during instrumentation and using XPF to improve the residual smear layer removal with EDTA exhibited the best efficacy for removing the residual smear layer.


Mashalkar S, Selvakumar G, Diwanji P, Indi S, Warad J. Apical microleakage in root canal-treated teeth containing broken hand files obturated with two different obturating materials: An in vitro study. Endodontology. 2019;31(1):68-71.

Chandra A. Discuss the factors that affect the outcome of endodontic Treatment. Aust Endod J. 2009;35(2):98-107.

Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod. 2006;32(5):389-98.

Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, Armellin E, Conte G, Cianconi L. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (Endo Activator, Endo Vac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): Field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study. J Endod. 2013;39(11):1456-60.

Alamoudi RA. The smear layer in endodontic: To keep or remove – an updated overview. Saudi Endod J. 2019;9(2):71-81.

Violich DR, Chandler N. The smear layer in endodontics – a review. International Endodontic Journal. 2010;43(1):2-15.

Vaz-Garcia ES, Vieira VT, Petitet NP, Moreira EJ, Lopes HP, Elias CN, et al. Mechanical properties of Anatomic Finishing Files: XP-Endo Finisher and XP-Clean. Braz Dent J. 2018;29(2):208-13.

Kamel WH, Kataia EM. Comparison of the Efficacy of Smear Clear with and without a Canal Brush in Smear Layer and Debris Removal from Instrumented Root Canal Using Wave One Versus ProTaper: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study. J Endod. 2014;40(3):446-50.

Faraj BM. Root canal curvature as a prognostic factor influencing the diagnostic accuracy of radiographic working length determination and postoperative canal axis modification: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):90.

Malur MH, Chandra A. Curvature height and distance of MB canal of mandibular molar with Schneider angle and its comparison with canal access angle. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2018;8(3):212-6.

Azimian Sh, Bakhtiar H, Azimi Sh, Esnaashari E. In vitro effect of XP-Endo finisher on the amount of residual debris and smear layer on the root canal walls. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2019;16(3):179-84.

Živković S, Nešković J, Medojević MJ, Bajić MP, Sandić MZ. XP-endo Finisher: A New Solution for Smear Layer Removal. Serb Dent J. 2015;62(3):122-9.

Alakshar A, Saleh AR, Gorduysus MO. Debris and Smear Layer Removal from Oval Root Canals Comparing XP-Endo Finisher, EndoActivator, and Manual Irrigation: A SEM Evaluation. Eur J Den. 2020;14(4):626-33.

Moogi PP, Rao RN. Cleaning and shaping the root canal with an Nd: YAG laser beam: A comparative study. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13(2):84-8.

Robberecht L, Dehurtevent M, Lemaitre G, Béhal H, Hornez JC, Claisse-Crinquette A. Influence of Root Canal Curvature on Wall Cleanliness in the Apical Third during Canal Preparation. Eur Endod J. 2017;2(1):1-6.

Agarwal S, Nagpal R, Singh UP. NiTi Endodontics: Contemporary Views Reviewed. Austin J Dent. 2018;5(4):1112.

Tabassum S, Zafar K, Umer F. Nickel-Titanium Rotary File Systems: What’s New. Eur Endod J. 2019;4(3):111-7.

Herisa M, Maharani N, Meidywati R, Artiningsih D, Nazar k. Smear layer reduction in root canals prepared with triangular and rectangular files as evaluated by scanning electron. Int J Appl Pharm. 2020;12(2):27-30.

Khaleefah FJ, Abdul-Ameer ZM. The Effect of Different Endodontics Irrigant Activators on Removal of Debris and Smear Layer from Root Canal Dentin (An In Vitro Study). Int Medical J. 2020;25(4):1963-74.

Keir DM, Senia ES, Montgomery S. Effectiveness of a brush in removing post instrumentation canal debris. J Endod. 1990;16(7):323-7.

Zand V, Mokhtari H, Reyhani MF, Vandizadeh N, Azimi S. Smear layer removal evaluation of different protocol of Bio Race file and XP-endo Finisher file in corporation with EDTA 17% and NaOCl. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(11):1310-4.

Singh S, Mirdha N, Shilpa PH, Tiwari RVC, Abdul MSM, Sainudeen S. Shaping Ability of 2Shape and WaveOne Gold Files Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2019;9(3):245-9.

Williamson AE, Sandor AJ, Justman BC. A comparison of three nickel titanium rotary systems, EndoSequence, ProTaper Universal, and Profile GT, for canal-cleaning ability. J Endod. 2009;35(1):107-9.

Keles A, Kamalak A, Keskin C, Akçay M, Uzun I. The efficacy of laser, ultrasound and self-adjustable file in removing smear layer debris from oval root canals following retreatments: A scanning electron microscopy study. Aust Endod J. 2016;42(3):104-11.

Lo Giudice G, Cutroneo G, Centofanti A, Artemisia A, Bramanti E, Militi A, et al. Dentin Morphology of Root Canal Surface: A Quantitative Evaluation Based on a Scanning Electronic Microscopy Study. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:164065.

Elnaghy AM, Mandorah A, Elsaka SE. Effectiveness of XP-endo finisher, Endo Activator, and file agitation on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: A comparative study. Odontology. 2017;105(2):178-83.

Schäfer E, Florek H. Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2003;36(3):199-207.

Metzger Z, Basrani B, Goodis HE. Instruments, materials, and devices. In: Hargreaves KM, Cohen S, editors. Cohen’s Pathways of the Pulp. New York: Elsevier; 2011. p. 223-80.

Jahromi MZ, Fathi MH, Zamiran S. Experimental study of smear layer and debris remaining following the use of four root canal preparation systems using scanning. J Iran Dent Assoc. 2013;25(4):235-41.

Azim AA, Aksel H, Zhuang T, Mashtare T, Babu JP, Huang GT. Efficacy of 4 irrigation protocols in killing bacteria colonized in dentinal tubules examined by a novel confocal laser scanning microscope analysis. J Endod. 2016;42(6):928-34.

Plotino G, Özyürek T, Grande NM, Gündoğar M. Influence of size and taper of basic root canal preparation on root canal cleanliness: A scanning electron microscopy study. Int Endod J. 2019;52(3):343-51.

Kandil HE, Ahmed H, Labib AH, Alhadainy HA. Effect of different irrigant solutions on microhardness and smear layer removal of root canal dentin. Tanta Dent J. 2014;11(1):1-11.

Vemuri S, Kolanu SK, Varri S, Pabbati RK, Penumaka R, Bolla N. Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19(1):87-90.



How to Cite

Effect of XP-Endo Finisher Rotary File on Removal of Smear Layer on the Root Canal Wall Using Different Rotary Files and Different Irrigants (An Ex- vivo Study). (2023). Sulaimani Dental Journal, 10(3), 12. https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10174