{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013863216266173753, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.2601156069364166, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The supplementary use of XP-endo Finisher R after Reciproc enhances the removal of a bioceramic sealer in oval root canals.

This study compared the performance of Reciproc and Reciproc Blue endodontic files in retreatment time and re-establishment of apical patency, plus removal of a bioceramic sealer from the canal surface with the supplementary use of the XP-endo Finisher R. Following preparation, slightly curved oval root canals in mandibular incisors were filled using a corresponding gutta-percha point and a bioceramic sealer. Apical patency achievement was assessed and the time required to reach the original working length was recorded. The samples were split longitudinally and were photographed to assess the material remaining on the canal walls. No significant differences were observed regarding patency achievement or retreatment times when comparing Reciproc and Reciproc Blue. Significant less material remained on the canal walls when Reciproc was followed by XP-endo compared with Reciproc alone, and when the data for Reciproc and Reciproc Blue were pooled.