The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

49 protocols using x smart

1

Comparative Endodontic Instrumentation Techniques

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Control group specimens were left unprepared. Experimental groups were instrumented as per following criteria:

Group I: PTU

Subgroup A: RCL

Subgroup B: RCL-1 mm

Group II: PTN

Subgroup A: RCL

Subgroup B: RCL-1 mm

Group III: PTG

Subgroup A: RCL

Subgroup B: RCL-1 mm

The following sequences were used for PTU (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and PTG (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland): SX file (1/2 of working length), S1 and S2 files (2/3 of the working length), and F1 file (full working length). All the files were used with a torque-controlled endodontic motor (X-Smart, Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) at 300 rpm with a torque of 3.0 Ncm for SX and S1 instruments and 1.5 Ncm for S2 and F1 instruments. PTN (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) was instrumented with file sequence of X1, X2 and X3 at 300 rpm with 2.0 Ncm torque. All the files were used in brushing motion along the root canal except for F1 which was used in “in-and-out” motion. Irrigation was done after each file using 2 ml of 1% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution (Clorox Corp., Oakland, CA).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Instrumentation and Irrigation Techniques

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
All mesiobuccal canals were instrumented to the working length using the crown-down technique with a handpiece (X-Smart, Dentsply Maillefer, Japan) at the speed and torque recommended by the manufacturers for each system. The root canals were irrigated with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite solution delivered with a 30-gauge needle between instruments. Also, 17% EDTA and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite were used for final rinse and elimination of smear layer.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Crown-Down Root Canal Preparation

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
All root canals were prepared using the crown-down technique by a hand piece (X-Smart; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) with controlled speed and torque recommended by the manufacturer for each system along with rinsing with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite with a 30-gauge needle between instruments. Also, 17% EDTA and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite were used for the final rinse to eliminate the smear layer.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Premolar Disinfection Protocol Evaluation

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
This in vitro study was conducted using 72 extracted mandibular premolar teeth. Intact, single-rooted, and closed-apex samples were selected from teeth with similar corono-apical dimensions (20–23 mm) that were extracted for reasons unrelated to the study. Residual debris and soft tissues on the teeth were removed using periodontal curettes, and the teeth were kept in distilled water containing 0.1% thymol crystals at room temperature. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Ankara University.
All the teeth were decoronated perpendicular to the long axis (13 mm of root length) using a high-speed, water-cooled handpiece. The root canals were prepared up to #F3 using the ProTaper rotary file system (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA, USA). Instrumentation was performed by an operator using an Endomotor (X-Smart; Dentsply Sirona). The root canals were irrigated with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution during the preparation procedure for lubrication and removal of debris. The samples were randomly divided into seven experimental groups and one control group based on the final irrigant.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Race Evo Rotary Instrumentation Protocol

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Participants began by watching an instructional video explaining how the Race Evo system is used. They were also given the manufacturer’s brochure, which indicated the instruments' sequence: First, a hand #15 K file is taken to full working length, then Race Evo rotary instrument size 15/taper 0.04, followed by size 25/taper 0.04, and size 30/taper 0.04 [19 ]. The Race Evo rotary instruments were used on an electric motor (X-smart, Dentsply–Sirona, Charlotte NC; USA) according to manufacturer’s instructions. Each rotary instrument was used with gentle 2–3 mm strokes concomitant with light apical pressure that allows the instrument to advance passively within the canal, until working length is reached. After three strokes the file is removed, cleaned and canal irrigation and recapitulation were performed.
All instruments were lubricated with EDTA gel during canal preparation, and warm water was used for rinsing after each file. Fractured instruments were replaced with new instruments, otherwise the same set of instruments was used to instrument the three canals. The time required for complete instrumentation of each canal (including irrigation and instrument change) was recorded.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Endodontic Instrumentation Using PTU Files

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Root canals were prepared with PTU instruments which were used at 300 rpm with 2 Ncm torque with a torque controlled endodontic motor (X-Smart, Dentsply Maillefer, Konstanz, Switzerland). An SX file was used at one-half of the WL, S1 and S2 files were used at two-thirds of the WL, and F1 (20/0.07), F2 (25/0.08), F3 (30/0.06), and F4 (40/0.06) files were used at full WL. SX, S1, and S2 were used with brushing motion meanwhile other files were used with a gentle in-and-out motion. Irrigation was performed after every file with distilled water with open ended needle.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Comparison of Rotary and Reciprocating File Systems

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
In both the groups, instrumentation was done according to manufacturer's instructions using a new file for every tooth in both the groups. 2.5% sodium hypochlorite was used as an irrigant and Glyde (Dentsply Maillefer) as a lubricant.
In the PT group, using an electric motor (X-Smart; Dentsply Maillefer) with a 16:1 reduction handpiece, a new set of rotary S1-F2 instruments was used in a sequence to prepare each sample.
Each sample in the SAF group was prepared using a new 21 mm/1.5 mm SAF file attached to an EndoStation endodontic motor and RDT3 handpiece (ReDent Nova) operating at a frequency of 5000 oscillations per minute and amplitude of 0.4 mm. A continuous short pecking motion was used for 4 min while maintaining the irrigant flow rate at 4 mL/min.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Aseptic Endodontic Instrumentation Techniques

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Airborne bacterial contamination was prevented with aseptic techniques in a Class I laminar airflow cabinet. All rotary systems were used with torque-controlled endodontic motors (X-Smart, Dentsply Maillefer). The automatic reverse function mode was used except with the TFA. The instrumentation sequences were used with gentle and minimal pressure as follows:
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Root Canal Instrumentation with Reciprocating Motion

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
WOG Primary file (size 25, 0.08 taper) was used for root canal instrumentation procedure in a reciprocating working motion at 300 rpm with a proprietary motor (X-Smart, Dentsply Maillefer).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Endodontic File Irrigation and Use

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The specimens were rinsed with 10 mL 1.5% NaOCl using a syringe and 30 G SVN (Maxi-i-probe, Dentsply, Rinn, IL, USA) placed 1 mm from the WL with a flow rate of approximately 5 mL/min. XPF file (size 25, 0.00 taper) (FKG, LaChaux-de-faund, Switzerland) was used with an endodontic motor (X‐Smart, Dentsply‐Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) at 800 rpm and 1 Ncm torque according to the manufacturer’s instructions [11 ]. The file was inserted 1 mm shorter than the WL which was adjusted using the plastic tube to fix the rubber stopper and operated for 60 s using slow and gentle 7–8 mm lengthwise in‐and‐out movements. Each file was used for one canal in order to prevent interfering with the debris extrusion results.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!