## 3 Results
Table 6 and Figure 3 show the satisfaction values in the sealer groups at 6 mm. GuttaFlow(r) bioseal had a higher proportion of acceptable fillers, but the difference was not statistically significant (\(p\)-value \(>\) 0.05). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Root Canal Sealer**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & **Non** & **Biorrot** & **GutaFlow** & **Total** \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & **RCS** & **Bioseal** & **Total** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**At 10 mm**} & Grade 0 & Count & 5 & 7 & 8 & 20 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 100 & 33.3 & 36.4 & 41.7 \\  & & Count & 0 & 9 & 14 & 23 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 0 & 42,9 & 63,6 & 47,9 \\  & & Count & 0 & 5 & 0 & 5 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 0 & 23,8 & 0 & 10,4 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**TOTAL**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Count} & 5 & 21 & 22 & 48 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Filling values of CLS at 10 mm according to the type of root canal sealer. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Root Canal Sealer**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & **None** & **Biorrot** & **GutaFlow** & **Total** \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & **RCS** & **Bioseal** & **Total** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**SLC satisfaction**} & No acceptable. Grade 0 & Count & 5 & 14 & 17 & 36 \\  & and 1 & \% within root canal sealer used & 100 & 66.7 & 77.3 & 75 \\
3 mm & Acceptable. Grade 2, 3 & Count & 0 & 7 & 5 & 12 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 0 & 33.3 & 22.7 & 25 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**TOTAL**} & Count & 5 & 21 & 22 & 48 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Satisfaction of filling in SLC at 3 mm in each root canal sealer. Figure 2: Satisfaction of filling in SLC at 3 mm in each root canal sealer. Bar chart. Table 7 and Figure 4 show the satisfaction values in the sealer groups at 10 mm. BioRoot(r) RCS had a higher proportion than GuttaFlow(r) bioseal, and it was statistically significant (\(p\)-value \(<\) 0.05). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Root Canal Sealer**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**None**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Biorrot**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**GutaFlow**} \\  & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**RCS**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Bioseal**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**SLC satisfaction**} & No acceptable. Grade 0 & Count & 5 & 12 & 12 & 29 \\  & and 1 & \% within root canal sealer used & 100 & 57.1 & 54.5 & 60.4 \\
**6 mm** & Acceptable. Grade 2, 3 & Count & 0 & 9 & 10 & 19 \\  & y 4 & \% within root canal sealer used & 0 & 42.9 & 45.5 & 39.6 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**TOTAL**} & Count & 5 & 21 & 22 & 48 \\  & & \% within root canal sealer used & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Satisfaction of filling in SLC at 6 mm in each 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{2}{c}{**Biorrot**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**GutaFlow**} \\  & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**RCS**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Bioseal**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**SLC satisfaction**} & No acceptable. Grade 0 & Count & 5 & 16 & 22 & 43 \\  & and 1 & \% within root canal sealer used & 100 & 76.2 & 100 & 89.6 \\
**10 mm** & Acceptable. Grade 2, 3 & Count & 0 & 5 & 0 & 5 \\  & y 4 & \% within root canal sealer used & 0 & 23.8 & 0 & 10.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Satisfaction of filling in SLC at 10 mm in each root canal sealer. Figure 3: Satisfaction of filling in SLC at 6 mm in each root canal sealer. Bar chart. Regarding cement extrusion, there were no significant differences according to the type of root canal sealer, and the extrusion ratio was the same between the two groups (Table 8 and Figure 5).