## 3 Results
### Apical Reach  
The apical access evaluation showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the placement of CIS using manual condensation or indirect ultrasonic vibration in cavities prepared with tungsten carbide or ultrasonic tips (\(p\) = 0.350), as can be seen in Table 3. There was no statistically significant difference between the cavity preparation methods in the manual condensation of the MTA group's apical access (\(p\) = 0.087), but there was a statistically significant difference in the indirect ultrasonic vibration group (\(p\) = 0.011). A statistically significant difference was found between the cavity preparation methods in the groups placed by manual condensation and indirect ultrasonic vibration in the apical access of the Biodentine group (\(p\) = 0.000; \(p\) = 0.003, respectively) (Table 3). When apical access was evaluated according to the type of retrograde filling placement, as seen in Table 4, it was found that the presence or absence of apical access in all materials, and in both cavity preparation methods showed no statistically significant difference (\(p\) > 0.05) (Table 4). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Variances** & **Sum of Squares** & **SD** & **Mean Square** & **F-Value** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Cavity & 6183.874 & 1 & 6183.874 & 108.474 & 0.000 * \\ \hline Material & 238.885 & 2 & 119.442 & 2.095 & 0.128 \\ \hline Placement & 25.130 & 1 & 25.130 & 0.441 & 0.508 \\ \hline Cavity \(\times\) Material & 191.669 & 2 & 95.834 & 1.681 & 0.191 \\ \hline Cavity \(\times\) Placement & 153.107 & 1 & 153.107 & 2.686 & 0.104 \\ \hline Material \(\times\) Placement & 70.094 & 2 & 35.047 & 0.615 & 0.543 \\ \hline Cavity \(\times\) Material \(\times\) Placement & 7.182 & 2 & 3.591 & 0.063 & 0.939 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} SD: Standard Deviation. \(\times\): interactions between the groups, * statistically significant according to three-way analysis.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Three-way analysis of variance results of MPa. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Material**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Placement**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Cavity**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**The Apical Access**} \\ \cline{3-7}  & & & **Yes** & & **No** & & \(p\) \\ \cline{3-7}  & & & **n** & **\%** & **n** & **\%** & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CIS} & MC & TC & 5 & 50.0 & 5 & 50.0 & \\ \cline{3-7}  & MC & U & 2 & 20.0 & 8 & 80.0 & \\ \cline{3-7}  & \multirow{3}{*}{IUV} & TC & 5 & 50.0 & 5 & 50.0 & \\ \cline{3-7}  & & U & 2 & 20.0 & 8 & 80.0 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{MTA} & MC & TC & 10 & 100.0 & 0 & 0.0 & \\ \cline{3-7}  & \multirow{3}{*}{IUV} & TC & 10 & 100.0 & 0 & 0.0 & \\ \cline{3-7}  & & U & 4 & 40.0 & 6 & 60.0 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{BIO} & MC & TC & 10 & 100.0 & 0 & 0.0 & \\ \cline{3-7}  & \multirow{3}{*}{IUV} & U & 0 & 0.0 & 10 & 100.0 & \\ \cline{3-7}  & & U & 7 & 70.0 & 3 & 30.0 & \\ \cline{3-7}  & & U & 0 & 0.0 & 10 & 100.0 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} CIS: Cam ionomer cement, MTA: Mineral trioxide aggregate, BIO: Biodentine, MC: Manual condensation, IUV: Indirect ultrasonic vibration, TC: Tungsten carbide cavity, U: Ultrasonic cavity, * statistically significant according to chi-square analysis.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Apical access chi-square test according to cavity methods. When evaluated in terms of retrograde cavity material, there is a statistically significant difference in apical access in all materials according to retrograde cavity and filling placement technique (\(p<0.05\)), as seen in Table 5. MTA and Biodentine placed through manual condensation in tungsten carbide cavities provided 100% apical access. For cements placed by indirect ultrasonic vibration in tungsten carbide cavities, apical access was reported as 100% in the MTA group, 70% in the Biodentine group, and 50% in the CIS group. Manual condensation in ultrasonic cavities resulted in 60% apical access in the MTA group, 20% in the CIS group, and no apical access in the Biodentine group.