Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture resistances of teeth filled using different root canal sealers band rials.Materials and Methods: One hundred and twenty single rooted mandibular human incisor teeth with single canals were divided into 5 experimental groups of 20 teeth with 2 control groups of 10 teeth each. After root canal shaping using K3 rotary instruments, root canals were filled as follows: Group 1: (−) control, Group 2: (+) control, Group 3: Gutta‑percha/AH Plus, Group 4: Thermafil/AH Plus, Group 5: Resilon/Epiphany self‑etch (Epiphany SE), Group 6: Gutta‑percha/Epiphany SE ve Group 7: EndoREZ sealer/EndoREZ cone. After the root canal sealers set, the apical 4 mm. portions of the specimens were embedded in cold curing acrylic and a fracture resistance test was applied in a universal testing machine. The load at which fracture occurred was recorded for each group and statistically analyzed using one‑way ANOVA and Tukey’s honestly significant difference tests.Results: Resilon/Epiphany SE ve EndoREZ sealer/EndoREZ cone groups had lower fracture resistances compared with the negative control group consisted of teeth without root canal shaping (P < 0.05). Gutta‑percha/AH Plus, Thermafil/AH Plus and Gutta‑percha/Epiphany SE groups showed similar fracture resistances (P > 0.05). The fracture resistance of the instrumented, but unfilled positive control group was significantly lower compared with (−) control, Gutta‑percha/AH Plus, Thermafil/AH Plus (P < 0.01) and Gutta‑percha/Epiphany SE (P < 0.05) groups. There were no significant differences between the fracture resistances of the Resilon/Epiphany SE and EndoREZ sealer/EndoREZ cone and positive control groups (P > 0.05).Conclusions: Root canal shaping procedures decrease the fracture resistance of teeth, and lateral condensation performed with AH Plus sealer and Gutta‑percha and the Thermafil technique were found to be more successful.Keywords: EndoREZ, epiphany self‑etch, fracture resistance, resilon, thermafi
