METHODOLOGY: Eighty-four mandibular first premolars were split into seven groups (and n = 12), Group 1: Dia-Root, Group 2: One-Fil, Group 3: BioRoot RCS, Group 4: AH Plus, Group 5: CeraSeal, Group 6: iRoot SP, Group 7: GP without sealer (control). Two groups were made, one for dentinal tubule penetration and the other for push-out bond strength; the total sample size was one hundred sixty-eight. Root canal treatment was performed using a method called the crown down technique, and for obturation, the single cone technique was used. A confocal laser scanning microscope (Leica, Microsystem Heidel GmbH, Version 2.00 build 0585, Germany) was used to evaluate dentinal tubule penetration, and Universal Testing Machine was utilised to measure the push-out bond strength (Shimadzu, Japan) using a plunger size of 0.4 mm and speed of 1mm/min. Finally, the adhesive pattern of the sealers was analysed by HIROX digital microscope (KH-7700). Statistical analysis was carried out by a one-way Anova test, Dunnet's T3 test, and Chi-square test.

RESULTS: Highest dentinal tubule penetration was noticed with One-Fil (p<0.05), followed by iRoot SP, CeraSeal, AH Plus, Dia-Root also, the most negligible value was recorded for BioRoot RCS. Meanwhile, BioRoot RCS (p<0.05) demonstrated the greater value of mean push-out bond strength, followed by One-fil, iRoot SP, CeraSeal, AH Plus and Dia-Root. Regarding adhesive pattern, most of the samples were classified as type 3 and type 4 which implies greater sealing ability and better adherence to the dentinal wall. However, BioRoot RCS revealed the most type 4 (p<0.05), followed by AH Plus, One-Fil, CeraSeal and Dia-Root.

METHODOLOGY: An electronic search was conducted in PubMed / Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases until January 2023 to retrieve related studies. "Root canal morphology," "Saudi Arabia," "Micro-CT," and "cone-beam computed tomography" were used as keywords. A modified version of previously published risk of bias assessment tool was used to determine the quality assessment of included studies.

RESULTS: The literature search revealed 47 studies that matched the criteria for inclusion, out of which 44 studies used cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and three were micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) studies. According to the modified version of risk of bias assessment tool, the studies were categorized as low, moderate, and high risk of bias. A total of 47,612 samples were included which comprised of either maxillary teeth (5,412), or mandibular teeth (20,572), and mixed teeth (21,327). 265 samples were used in micro-CT studies while 47,347 teeth samples were used in CBCT studies. Among the CBCT studies, except for three, all the studies were retrospective studies. Frequently used imaging machine and software were 3D Accuitomo 170 and Morita's i-Dixel 3D imaging software respectively. Minimum and maximum voxel sizes were 75 and 300 μm, Vertucci's classification was mostly used to classify the root canal morphology of the teeth. The included micro-CT studies were in-vitro studies where SkyScan 1172 X-ray scanner was the imaging machine with pixel size ranging between 13.4 and 27.4 μm. Vertucci, Ahmed et al. and Pomeranz et al. classifications were applied to classify the root canal morphology.