**9. Marginal adaptation/sealing capacity**

According to Shokouhinejad et al. [39], the marginal adaptation of the EndoSequence Root Repair Material (ERRM) was similar to that of the MTA. However, bioceramic-based cements when compared with resin-based cements (AH PLUS) exhibited more regions containing gaps. Bioceramic endodontic cements also showed infiltration results similar to MTA. In relation to sealing and its ability, the Bioceramic Root-end Repair (BCRR) is equivalent to the MTA [13]. Antunes et al. [14] reported that MTA and BioCeramic Root Repair Material (BC-RRM) showed similar sealing ability.

To what concerns bioceramics and the hydration of the material during the setting process, the formation of hydroxyapatite crystals occurs between the surface of the material and the dentin wall, which can provide adequate sealing and marginal adaptation in this region [19, 40, 41].

Antunes et al. [14] evaluated the sealing capacity of MTA cement and EndoSequence BC RRM-Fast Set Putty in an ex vivo study, in roots of 60 instrumented lower central incisors, which were sectioned in the apical region and ultrasonic tip retroinstruments, and using a new model of bacterial nutrient infiltration. Retrograde obturation was performed with the MTA and BC-RRM Putty in two sets of teeth. In the MTA group, 50% of viable species were detected while in the Putty BC-RRM group, 28% of the samples were positive for cultured bacteria. However, in the comparison analysis of the quantitative or presence/absence of bacteria, no significant difference was identified between the groups, leading the authors to conclude that the cements studied have similar sealing capacity.
