Fabien Maalouf, Roula El Hachem, Carla Zogheib
European Endodontic Journal - 2026;11(4):189-193
Objective: The key to the success of any endodontic treatment is proper irrigation of the canal system in order to eliminate bacterial infections, pulpal tissues, and debris created during the shaping of the canal. Due to the complex anatomy of the canals and the limitation of conventional irrigation in providing complete irrigant penetration into the root apical third as well as existing lateral canals, more effective methods are mandatory. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 4 irrigation protocols, through irrigant penetration into the main and lateral canals. Methods: Twenty-eight single-rooted teeth with 1 canal were randomly divided into 4 groups: Irriflex (n = 7), EndoActivator (EA) (n = 7), XP Finisher (n = 7), and XP Finisher R (n = 7). Four lateral canals were created in each tooth at 2 mm and 4 mm from the apex for a total of 112 lateral canals. Each group was subject to cone beam computed tomography scans and retroalveolar images. Results: A significant difference iin main canal penetration was observed when comparing Irriflex to the EA, XP Finisher, and XP Finisher R (P < .05). There was no significant difference iin lateral canal penetration between the 4 techniques. Conclusion: While EA, XP Finisher, and XP Finisher R expressed better performance of irrigant penetration into the main canal, these 3 techniques offered the same outcome when compared to each other. No technique was able to significantly outperform the others in delivering the irrigation solution into lateral canals.
