Sealing ability in vitro study and biocompatibility in vivo animal study of different bioceramic based sealers

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of root canal therapy in endodontic practice is largely determined by providing a compact fluid‐tight closure at the apex of the root canal, which inhibits irritant entry and buildup, which leads to a biological breakdown of the attachment mechanism and failure. During obturation, along with gutta‐percha, root canal sealers are employed to fill voids and seal root canals. Root canal sealers come in a variety of shapes and sizes, each with its own set. AIM: Evaluation of sealing ability in vitro study by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and biocompatibility in vivo animals study of BioRoot RCS and meta Biomed bio_ceramic sealer (CeraSeal RCS) and compared the findings with that of Zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) sealer as control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study utilized two bio_ceramic sealers (BioRoot RCS and meta Biomed bio_ceramic sealer (CeraSeal RCS) and compared the findings with that of ZOE sealer as control. Biocompatibility was determined by examining histopathological biopsy specimens collected from rabbits. Each rabbit had four dentin tubes implanted into the subcutaneous tissues, one for BioRoot RCS, one for CeraSeal RCS, and one for ZOE RCS, with the fourth tube being empty haematoxylin and eosin were used to stain histological sections, and a light microscope was used to evaluate them. Extracted human single canal premolars were used to evaluate the sealing ability. The root canals were divided into three sections (coronal, middle, and apical). SEM was used to assess the adhesion quality at the sealer‐dentin interface. RESULTS: BioRoot and CeraSeal sealers have excellent sealing adaptation and biocompatibility, as well as rapid tissue recovery, while ZOE sealers have a slower recovery of inflammatory reaction results when compared to bio_root and ceraSeal sealers, as well as a less sealing adaptation than the two other bio_ceramic sealers. CONCLUSION: In general, the two bioceramic sealers tested were biocompatible and capable of sealing or adhesion. While ZOE had less adherence ability and less biocompatibility.