A comparative study on the efficacy of two types of rotary nickel-titanium files in removing root canal fillings

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2025.10.010

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective ·To explore the efficacy of the XP-Endo Shaper (XPS) and Reciproc (RC) engine-driven nickel-titanium file systems in removing root canal fillings, and to provide evidence for clinical application. Methods ·The maxillary first permanent molars were obtained from patients who visited the Department of General Dentistry, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, between March and September 2022, which required tooth extraction due to periodontal disease. A total of 30 mesiobuccal or distobuccal root canals with moderate curvature were selected and randomly divided into the RC file group (control group, n=15) and the XPS file group (experimental group, n=15). All root canals were first negotiated and shaped using M3-PRO nickel-titanium files, followed by root canal obturation with bioceramic paste using the single-cone technique. Then, RC files (R25) were used in the control group, while XPS files were used in the experimental group to remove the root canal obturation. Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scans were performed before and after the removal procedures. The time required for obturation removal, the percentage of residual obturation volume, the amount of apical debris extrusion, and the degree of instrument deformation were recorded. Independent-sample t-tests and chi-square test were used to compare the differences between the two groups. Results ·The XPS group required slightly more time (118.87±18.58) s than the RC group (107.93±14.79) s, but the difference between two groups was not statistically significant. The XPS group had a lower percentage of residual obturation volume (7.51±8.06)% compared to the RC group (15.02±14.63)%, but the difference was not statistically significant. The XPS group had significantly less apical debris extrusion (6.15±1.42) mg than the RC group (8.29±2.01) mg, with a statistically significant difference (P=0.002). Both groups exhibited varying degrees of instrument deformation, but yet no instrument separation occurred in either group. Conclusion ·The RC engine-driven nickel-titanium files were slightly more time-efficient in removing root canal fillings, whereas the XPS files achieved a higher canal cleanliness and produced less apical debris extrusion. As there was no significant difference in removal time, and considering the superior cleaning performance and reduced risk of postoperative complications, the XPS file system appears more suitable for removing root canal fillings in moderately curved root canals.

Key words: curved root canal, engine-driven nickel-titanium endodontic file, Reciproc (RC) file, XP-Endo Shaper (XPS) file, root canal filling, apically extruded debris

CLC Number:

R781.05

TAI Zhaowei, HU Zihang, TAN Chyiyann, PENG Weiwei, DU Rong. A comparative study on the efficacy of two types of rotary nickel-titanium files in removing root canal fillings[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science), 2025, 45(10): 1353-1360.

Figures/Tables 7

TrendMD

References 31

[1]	BROCHADO MARTINS J F, GUERREIRO VIEGAS O, CRISTESCU R, et al. Outcome of selective root canal retreatment: a retrospective study[J]. Int Endod J, 2023, 56(3): 345-355.
[2]	TIBÚRCIO-MACHADO C S, MICHELON C, ZANATTA F B, et al. The global prevalence of apical periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Int Endod J, 2021, 54(5): 712-735.
[3]	GULABIVALA K, NG Y L. Factors that affect the outcomes of root canal treatment and retreatment: a reframing of the principles[J]. Int Endod J, 2023, 56(Suppl 2): 82-115.
[4]	TOIA C C, KHOURY R D, CORAZZA B J M, et al. Effectiveness of 1-visit and 2-visit endodontic retreatment of teeth with persistent/secondary endodontic infection: a randomized clinical trial with 18 months of follow-up[J]. J Endod, 2022, 48(1): 4-14.
[5]	ROSSI-FEDELE G, AHMED H M A. Assessment of root canal filling removal effectiveness using micro-computed tomography: a systematic review[J]. J Endod, 2017, 43(4): 520-526.
[6]	TANTIWANICHPUN B, KULVITIT S. Efficiency and complications in root canal retreatment using nickel titanium rotary file with continuous rotation, reciprocating, or adaptive motion in curved root canals: a laboratory investigation[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2023, 23(1): 871.
[7]	HOWAIT M. Reciproc endodontic file surface defects after single use: an SEM analysis[J]. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent, 2021, 11(1): 98-103.
[8]	ODGEREL Z, KWAK S W, HA J H, et al. Effect of MT technology of heat treatment on reciproc: comparison of Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, and Reciproc MT[J]. J Endod, 2024, 50(4): 520-526.
[9]	IACONO F, PIRANI C, ARIAS A, et al. Impact of a modified motion on the fatigue life of NiTi reciprocating instruments: a Weibull analysis[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2019, 23(7): 3095-3102.
[10]	PRATI C, ZAMPARINI F, SPINELLI A, et al. Secondary root canal treatment with Reciproc Blue and K-file: radiographic and ESEM-EDX analysis of dentin and root canal filling remnants[J]. J Clin Med, 2020, 9(6): 1902.
[11]	HASSAN H Y, HADHOUD F M, MANDORAH A. Retreatment of XP-endo Shaper and R-Endo files in curved root canals[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2023, 23(1): 38.
[12]	SCHNEIDER S W. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol, 1971, 32(2): 271-275.
[13]	YETER K Y, EVCIL M S, AYRANCI L B, et al. Weight of apically extruded debris following use of two canal instrumentation techniques and two designs of irrigation needles[J]. Int Endod J, 2013, 46(9): 795-799.
[14]	ROMEIRO K, DE ALMEIDA A, CASSIMIRO M, et al. Reciproc and Reciproc Blue in the removal of bioceramic and resin-based sealers in retreatment procedures[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2020, 24(1): 405-416.
[15]	NAJAFZADEH R, FAZLYAB M, ESNAASHARI E. Comparison of bioceramic and epoxy resin sealers in terms of marginal adaptation and tubular penetration depth with different obturation techniques in premolar teeth: a scanning electron microscope and confocal laser scanning microscopy study[J]. J Family Med Prim Care, 2022, 11(5): 1794-1797.
[16]	ALOMARI T, MUSTAFA R, AL-FODEH R, et al. Debris extrusion using Reciproc Blue and XP Endo Shaper systems in root canal retreatment[J]. Int J Dent, 2021, 2021: 6697587.
[17]	KAPASI K, KESHARANI P, KANSARA P, et al. In vitro comparative evaluation of efficiency of XP-endo shaper, XP-endo finisher, and XP-endo finisher-R files in terms of residual root filling material, preservation of root dentin, and time during retreatment procedures in oval canals: a cone-beam computed tomography analysis[J]. J Conserv Dent, 2020, 23(2): 145-151.
[18]	ADEL M, TOFANGCHIHA M, RASHVAND E, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of NeoNiTi, ProTaper, and Reciproc files in the retreatment of curved root canals: a CBCT assessment[J]. Acta Stomatol Croat, 2022, 56(4): 351-362.
[19]	CROZETA B M, LOPES F C, MENEZES SILVA R, et al. Retreatability of BC Sealer and AH Plus root canal sealers using new supplementary instrumentation protocol during non-surgical endodontic retreatment[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2021, 25(3): 891-899.
[20]	ALSUBAIT S, ALHATHLOL N, ALQEDAIRI A, et al. A micro-computed tomographic evaluation of retreatability of BioRoot RCS in comparison with AH Plus[J]. Aust Endod J, 2021, 47(2): 222-227.
[21]	BARANWAL H C, MITTAL N, GARG R, et al. Comparative evaluation of retreatability of bioceramic sealer (BioRoot RCS) and epoxy resin (AH Plus) sealer with two different retreatment files: an in vitro study[J]. J Conserv Dent, 2021, 24(1): 88-93.
[22]	DE-DEUS G, BELLADONNA F G, ZUOLO A S, et al. 3-dimensional ability assessment in removing root filling material from pair-matched oval-shaped canals using thermal-treated instruments[J]. J Endod, 2019, 45(9): 1135-1141.
[23]	SOLOMONOV M, PAQUÉ F, KAYA S, et al. Self-adjusting files in retreatment: a high-resolution micro-computed tomography study[J]. J Endod, 2012, 38(9): 1283-1287.
[24]	ELIASZ W, CZARNECKA B, SURDACKA A. Apical extrusion of debris during root canal preparation with ProTaper Next, WaveOne Gold and Twisted Files[J]. Materials (Basel), 2021, 14(21): 6254.
[25]	KOŞAR T, ÇELIK D, TAŞDEMIR T. Apically extruded debris of different file systems used with various kinematic movements during retreatment: an in vitro study[J]. Aust Endod J, 2023, 49(Suppl 1): 33-40.
[26]	PREDIN DJURIC N, VAN DER VYVER P, VORSTER M, et al. Comparison of apical debris extrusion using clockwise and counter-clockwise single-file reciprocation of rotary and reciprocating systems[J]. Aust Endod J, 2021, 47(3): 394-400.
[27]	CIFTCIOGLU E, SUNGUR GUZEL R, AKBAL DINCER G, et al. Efficiency of ProTaper Universal Retreatment, Reciproc Blue and XP-endo Shaper in the removal of a bioceramic-based root canal filling[J]. Eur Oral Res, 2023, 57(3): 159-164.
[28]	BÜRKLEIN S, SCHÄFER E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems[J]. J Endod, 2012, 38(6): 850-852.
[29]	SABETI M, GABBAY J, LOTFI D. The XP-endo shaper and its impact on posttreatment discomfort: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. J Endod, 2025, 51(4): 481-490.
[30]	MARTINS J N R, SILVA E J N L, MARQUES D, et al. Influence of continuous rotation and optimal torque reverse kinematics on the cyclic fatigue strength of endodontic NiTi clockwise cutting rotary instruments[J]. Dent J (Basel), 2024, 12(10): 317.
[31]	LIU H, SHABEHPOUR K, WANG Z J, et al. Characterisation of deformed or separated nickel-titanium retreatment instruments after clinical use: a multicentre experience: defect profiles of clinically-used retreatment instruments[J]. J Dent, 2022, 117: 103939.

Index	XPS group (n=15)	RC group (n=15)	P value
Root canal curvature/(°)	24.97±2.95	24.29±2.83	0.525
Root canal curvature radius/mm	7.00±1.46	6.94±1.20	0.903
Root canal working length/mm	19.16±0.96	19.10±0.97	0.851
Volume of root canal obturation material before removal/mm³	14.25±5.37	14.35±3.03	0.956

Index	XPS group (n=15)	RC group (n=15)	P value
Root canal curvature/(°)	24.97±2.95	24.29±2.83	0.525
Root canal curvature radius/mm	7.00±1.46	6.94±1.20	0.903
Root canal working length/mm	19.16±0.96	19.10±0.97	0.851
Volume of root canal obturation material before removal/mm³	14.25±5.37	14.35±3.03	0.956

Index	XPS group (n=15)	RC group (n=15)	P value
Percentage of residual obturation volume/%	7.51±8.06	15.02±14.63	0.096
Time required for obturation removal/s	118.87±18.58	107.93±14.79	0.135
Amount of apically extruded debris/mg	6.15±1.42	8.29±2.01	0.002

Index	XPS group (n=15)	RC group (n=15)	P value
Percentage of residual obturation volume/%	7.51±8.06	15.02±14.63	0.096
Time required for obturation removal/s	118.87±18.58	107.93±14.79	0.135
Amount of apically extruded debris/mg	6.15±1.42	8.29±2.01	0.002

Index	XPS group (n=15)	RC group (n=15)	P value
Instrument without deformation/n	12	13	‒
Instrument with deformation/n	3	2	‒
Instrument separation/n	0	0	‒
Percentage of instrument deformation/n(%)	3 (20.0)	2 (13.3)	>0.999