Introduction: The sealing ability of the root end filling materials to the wall can be assessed by the marginal adaptations. Various materials have been used in the past. This study was conducted to assess the root-end filling materials ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, RetroMTA’s marginal adaptation. Materials and Methods: Ninety single-rooted teeth were divided to three equal groups of ProRoot MTA, RetroMTA and Biodentine. After the BMP and obturation, the third (3mm) of the root apex were cut, and cavities made with the ultrasonic technique. The transverse and the longitudinal sections were studied using the epoxy a replica under the SEM. One-way ANOVA was employed to associate the marginal gaps between the groups and P<0.05 was considered significant. Results: Significant difference in the longitudinal gaps was observed when the three groups were compared. Conversely, in the transverse sections no significant differences were seen in the groups. Conclusion: Biodentine yielded the best marginal adaptability when compared to the other two only in the longitudinal sections. Greater gaps were seen in the transverse sections in all the three groups. Keywords: Mineral trioxide aggregate, Tricalcium silicate, ProRoot MTA, Marginal adaptation

Introduction: The root canal therapy is done with the intention to seal it off from any fluid leaks, thus enhancing the longevity of the therapy. The seal between the obturating material and the dentinal walls of the root surface is done by the endodontic sealer. The sealer is designed in such a way that it has to mould itself with the curves and follow the shapes of the root dentinal wall. Aims: To compare in-vitro the tensile bond strength of four different endodontic sealers to root dentin and Gutterpercha. Methods: Thirty six single ‑ rooted canine and premolar teeth with total apical formation were selected. Working length was determined after the crown portion was cut. BMP was done. Teeth were grouped as Group Ⅰ: MTA‑ based sealer, Group Ⅱ: Bioceramic Sealer, Group Ⅲ: Calcium based sealer, Group Ⅳ: Epoxy resin based (AH Plus sealer). Sealers were manipulated according to the manufacturer protocol. Obtuartion was done using 4% gutta ‑ percha. Later tensile strength test was done on the root slices of 2 mm thickness using universal testing machine. 6 mm in diameter Aluminum cylinders, were stabilized on the gutta–percha with small amounts of wax and were filled with one of the sealers. After setting each sealer, the drops of wax were removed and the tensile bond strengths of all the samples were measured using universal testing machine. The data was analysed using Tukey tests and ANOVA. Results: Among the 4 groups highest bond strength was found in Group Ⅱ (BioRootTMRCS) (P < 0.05) and the least was Group Ⅰ (MTA Fill apex). Conclusion: Bioceramic sealer’s tensile bond strength was highest followed by AH26, Sealapex and MTA‑ based sealer. Keywords: Bond strength; BioRoot TMRCS Sealer; MTA Fill apex; AH Plus Sealer, Sealapex, tensile strength.