## 3 Results  
Of the total of the SLC, 25% have been filled in an Acceptable way (grades 2 to 4) and cement extrusion was found in 10.4% of the studied teeth. Apical ramifications revealed by the filling and filled with cement were found in 18.75% of the studied teeth. Figure 1 shows the proportion of canal filling according to the filling depth, regardless of the type of cement. The highest proportion of acceptably filled canals (grades 2 to 4) was found in the middle third (canal 6 mm from the apex), followed by the apical third (3 mm) and then the coronal third (10 mm). Table 2 shows the results in the lateral canals at 3 mm of the apex between the sealer groups where there were statistically significant differences between sealers: BioRoot(r) RCS has allowed more grade 2 fillings (33.3%) in the 3 mm SLC than GuttaFlow(r) bioseal (4.5%),  
Figure 1: Degree of obturation according to the third studied. Table 3 shows the results in the lateral canals at 6 mm of the apex between the sealer groups, and there were differences between sealers: GuttaFlow(r) bioseal has allowed more grade 3 fillings (27.3%) in the 6 mm SLC than BioRoot(r) RCS (4.8%), and it was statistically significant (\(p\)-value < 0.05). Among the rest of the root canal sealers and grades, the differences there were not significant. Table 4 shows the results in the lateral canals at 10 mm of the apex between the sealer groups, and there were differences between cements: BioRoot(r) RCS has allowed more grade 2 fillings (23.8%) of SLC at 10 mm than GuttaFlow(r) bioseal (0%) and was statistically significant (\(p\)-value < 0.05). Among the rest of the sealers and grades, the differences were not significant. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Root Canal Sealer**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**None**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Biorot**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**GutaFlow**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Total**} \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{**At 3 mm**} & Grade 0 & Count & 5 & 9 & 9 & 23 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 100 & 42.9 & 40.9 & 47.9 \\  & & Count & 0 & 5 & 8 & 13 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 0 & 23.8 & 36.4 & 27.1 \\  & & Count & 0 & 7 & 1 & 8 \\
**At 3 mm** & Grade 2 & \% within root canal sealer used & 0 & 33.3 & 4.5 & 16.7 \\  & & Count & 0 & 0 & 3 & 3 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 0 & 0 & 13.6 & 6.3 \\  & & Count & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 0 & 0 & 4.5 & 2.1 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**TOTAL**} & Count & 5 & 21 & 22 & 48 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Filling values of CLS at 3 mm according to the type of root canal sealer. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Root Canal Sealer**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**None**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Biorot**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**GutaFlow**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**None**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**RCS**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Bioseal**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Total**} \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{**At 6 mm**} & Grade 0 & Count & 5 & 9 & 6 & 20 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 100 & 42.9 & 27.3 & 41.7 \\  & & Count & 0 & 3 & 6 & 9 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 0 & 14.3 & 27.3 & 18.8 \\  & & Count & 0 & 8 & 4 & 12 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 0 & 38.1 & 18.2 & 25 \\  & & Count & 0 & 1 & 6 & 7 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 0 & 4.8 & 27.3 & 14.6 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**TOTAL**} & Count & 5 & 21 & 22 & 48 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Filling values of CLS at 6 mm according to the type of root canal sealer. Table 5 and Figure 2 show the satisfaction values in the root canal sealer groups at 3 mm. For SLC acceptably filled 3 mm from the apex, BioRoot(r) RCS has obtained the highest ratio. However, the difference was not statistically significant (\(p\)-value \(>\) 0.05).