## 4 Discussion  
The present study was based on the hypothesis that there will be no difference in fracture resistance of root canals obturated with TotalFill BC Sealer and AH Plus sealer. It was also hypothesized that there will be no difference in fracture resistance when two different obturation techniques, i.e., lateral condensation and the single cone technique were used. Thus, the postulated hypothesis was accepted as experimental groups in which root canals were obturated using different sealers (TotalFill sealer and AH Plus sealer) and different techniques (lateral condensation technique and Single Cone technique) showed comparable fracture resistance outcomes. A multitude of reasons are responsible for such outcomes, including the adhesive properties of the sealer, bioactivity of sealers, instrument type and instrumentation methods, and root dentin anatomy. In the present study, in order to avoid inter-operator variability, a single operator performed all procedures including root canal preparation, irrigation and obturation. Similarly, for root canal preparation, the crown down technique was adopted as it allows debris to be expelled from the canal orifice [19]. Moreover, further standardization was achieved by using AH Plus sealer, which is considered as a gold standard root canal sealer in dentistry [20]. A sealer is conceived as a joint created between radicular dentin and the root filling material [13]. Adhesion between an endodontic sealer and root dentin serves two important purposes [21]. Primarily, the root canal sealer gives a superior seal, which prevents coronal and apical leakage [22]. Secondly, it inhibits filling material displacement during restorative procedures. In the present study, it was found that the mean value of fracture loads of the positive control (433.31 \(\pm\) 129.350 N) was significantly lower than all other groups tested. The above findings can be associated with loss of radicular dentin thickness (RDT) and moisture due to canal instrumentation and the reinforcement effect by both sealers [23; 24]. It was also established that positive control specimens, in which no canal instrumentation performed displayed a fracture strength comparable to group 3 (AH plus sealer + Lateral condensation technique) (733.71 \(\pm\) 232.572 N), group 4 (AH plus sealer + Single Cone technique) (752.77 \(\pm\) 120.587 N), and group 6 (TotalFill sealer + Single Cone technique) (797.46 \(\pm\) 204.557 N). There are various justifications that are accredited to such an outcome. AH Plus sealer, being epoxy resin-based, unveils some desired proprieties, i.e., adhesion by forming a covalent bond between the open epoxide ring and exposed amino acids in the collagen [25]. Moreover, AH Plus possesses an excellent penetration ability into the surface micro-irregularities due its creeping property, which results in increased \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Study Groups** & **Group Comparison** & \(\boldsymbol{p}\)**Value** \\ \hline
1. Positive control & 1 vs 2 & 0.0000 \\  & 1 vs 3 & 0.0541 \\
1. Positive control & 1 vs 4 & 0.1003 \\  & 1 vs 5 & 0.0166 \\  & 1 vs 6 & 0.3300 \\ \hline
2. Negative control & 2 vs 3 & 0.0017 \\  & 2 vs 4 & 0.0007 \\  & 2 vs 5 & 0.0069 \\  & 2 vs 6 & 0.0001 \\ \hline
3. GP-AH Plus-LC & 3 vs 4 & 0.9998 \\  & 3 vs 5 & 0.9976 \\  & 3 vs 6 & 0.9508 \\ \hline
4. GP-AH Plus-SC & 4 vs 5 & 0.9800 \\  & 4 vs 6 & 0.9896 \\ \hline
5. Totalfill GP-BC-LC & 5 vs 6 & 0.7713 \\
6. Totalfill GP-BC-SC & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Statistical comparison of root fracture resistance among study groups ([PERSON]’s post hoc test). -fracture strength [11; 26]. This finding is in line with the results of the earlier stated studies by [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al., which suggested that obturation with AH plus root canal sealers are able to resist the fracture load equivalent to the sound tooth structure in which no canal preparation and filling was performed [3; 16].