Evaluation with micro-CT of the canal seal made with two different bioceramic cements: Guttaflow bioseal and bioroot RCS

Aim: The aim of this work is to investigate the quality of root canal seals obtained by comparing two bioceramic cements, GuttaFlow bioseal and BioRoot RCS, focusing on the presence of voids created during the canal obturation procedure. Materials and methods: The voids are analyzed using a micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) device. The study will be performed using images of the endodontic space before and after filling of a selected group of elements. Furthermore, the average thickness of the cement, the average quantity of gutta-percha compared to the total shaped volume, and the average quantity of the two cements, GuttaFlow bioseal and BioRoot RCS, with respect to the total shaped volume were considered. The apical, middle, and coronal thirds will also be investigated in a sectorial manner. Images have been analyzed using a CT-An™ software and visualized through a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the slices by the software CT-Vol™. Shapiro–Wilk test/Test D’Agostino-Pearson/Kolmogorov–Smirnov test were used to ensure the reliability of results. Results: No significant differences were observed in the amount of gutta-percha compared to the shaped volume between the GuttaFlow bioseal group and BioRoot RCS. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of voids. Conclusion: The data obtained from this study allowed to conclude that the samples filled with GuttaFlow bioseal and BioRoot RCS have a similar seal capacity since no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups. No sample showed the absence of voids within the root canal obturation. Clinical significance: Even if the two cements tested showed differences in terms of void volume and ability to fill thin spaces, they should be considered both acceptable and equivalent in terms of clinical sealing ability.