Although the majority of the studies reported that the use of root canal sealers increased the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth , conflicting evidence was found for the reinforcing effect of resin , glass ionomer , and calcium silicate-based sealers while there was moderate evidence for zinc oxide eugenol-based sealers in favor of no reinforcing effect .
Conclusion On the basis of available evidence , the use of root canal sealer increases the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth .
Regarding the comparisons among the sealers , no conclusions could be drawn for the superiority of one sealer type to another .
Objective The purpose of this study was to systematic ally review and critically analyze the published data of in vitro studies testing the effect of root canal sealers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth .
Fracture resistance of roots filled with gutta-percha or RealSeal®.
AIM To evaluate the vertical root fracture resistance of maxillary central incisors filled with different  root filling material s and sealers . METHODOLOGY Forty maxillary central incisor root canals were instrumented and divided r and omly into four groups . Each group was filled using lateral compaction , with gutta-percha and AH Plus , gutta-percha and RealSeal ( ® ) sealer , RealSeal ( ® ) cone and RealSeal ( ® ) sealer , or RealSeal ( ® ) cone and AH Plus , respectively . The roots were loaded vertically by a conical spreader tip inserted into the canal and attached to an Instron testing machine until root fracture occurred . The load at fracture and the pattern of fracture were recorded . Mechanical properties of both core material s were tested under compressive loading . Results were analysed statistically by two-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey 's tests . An independent sample t-test was used to compare the mechanical properties of the filling material s. RESULTS Load at fracture of roots  filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus ( 255 ± 74 N ) and gutta-percha and RealSeal ( ® ) sealer ( 237 ± 38 N ) was significantly greater than those filled using the RealSeal ( ® ) system ( 163 ± 29 N ) and RealSeal ( ® ) cone with AH Plus sealer ( 134 ± 17 N ) . Most fracture lines were in a bucco-lingual direction . In compressive tests of the core material s , RealSeal ( ® ) had greater flow in response to load than gutta-percha , suggesting more efficient transmission of forces to the canal wall in the fracture tests . CONCLUSIONS The lower fracture resistance of roots filled using RealSeal ( ® ) is probably the result of more efficient transmission of forces within the canal , rather than a direct effect of the material itself
Although the majority of the studies reported that the use of root canal sealers increased the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth , conflicting evidence was found for the reinforcing effect of resin , glass ionomer , and calcium silicate-based sealers while there was moderate evidence for zinc oxide eugenol-based sealers in favor of no reinforcing effect .
Conclusion On the basis of available evidence , the use of root canal sealer increases the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth .
Regarding the comparisons among the sealers , no conclusions could be drawn for the superiority of one sealer type to another .
Objective The purpose of this study was to systematic ally review and critically analyze the published data of in vitro studies testing the effect of root canal sealers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth .