Author’s Reply

Dear Editor, We would like to sincerely thank the readers for their interest in our recently published article “Assessment of the quality of root canal filling using three different sealers: Microcomputed tomography and scanning electron microscope study”.[1] We appreciate their valuable insights, which highlight important methodological considerations that can influence the performance of root canal sealers. 1. Final irrigation protocol The readers correctly emphasized the role of irrigants in modifying the dentin surface. In our study, the canals were irrigated with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite during instrumentation, followed by 17% EDTA and a final rinse with distilled water. This sequence is widely accepted in clinical practice, as it removes the smear layer and exposes collagen fibrils. We agree that EDTA can favor epoxy resin–based sealer bonding, whereas sodium hypochlorite supports the biomineralization potential of bioceramic sealers. Our use of a standardized protocol across all groups aimed to provide a balanced substrate for comparison. 2. Root canal drying protocol We acknowledge the importance of tailoring drying to the sealer type. For standardization, canals were dried with paper points until no visible fluid remained. While this approach may not perfectly mimic the optimal clinical environment for hydrophilic sealers, it ensured comparability across groups. We agree that future investigations could stratify results based on controlled moisture levels, which would better reflect the clinical application of bioceramic sealers. 3. Differences in obturation protocols As the readers noted, EBCHF and AHP were used with warm vertical compaction, while EBC was used with the single-cone technique, according to manufacturer recommendations. This difference may introduce variability in sealer distribution and penetration. However, we deliberately chose to evaluate each sealer under its clinically indicated obturation method to reflect how these materials would realistically be used in practice. Nevertheless, we recognize that this introduces a methodological limitation, which we acknowledged in the discussion section of our paper. In conclusion, we thank the readers for their constructive comments. Their observations underscore the need for future studies that systematically vary irrigation, drying, and obturation protocols when comparing different sealers. Such work will further refine our understanding and guide evidence-based clinical practice. Sincerely,