Aim: to assess and compare the quality of root canal obturation using AH Plus and GuttaFlow 2 in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and methods: This randomized clinical trial included 50 participants with mandibular molars diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: the AH Plus group (RBS) and the GuttaFlow 2 group (SBS). Clinical procedures included local anesthesia, access cavity preparation under a surgical microscope, rubber dam isolation, and root canal preparation using the ProTaper Gold system. For the RBS group, AH Plus sealer was used with cold lateral condensation, while for the SBS group, GuttaFlow 2 was used with a cold free-flow compaction technique. Following endodontic treatment, coronal restoration was performed using flowable composite. Outcome assessment involved evaluating sealer extrusion together with the level of root filling and root-filling voids. Results: A total of 47 participants successfully completed the study. Regarding gender and age, no significant difference was shown between the groups in the demographic data. Qualitative analysis indicated no significant difference between the two materials in terms of voids, length, and extrusion (p<0.05). Conclusion: Both sealers provided comparable quality of root canal obturation, as evident by similar rates of sealer extrusion together with adequate levels of root filling and root-filling voids. The findings suggest that clinicians can choose either sealer based on preference or specific clinical scenarios without compromising treatment quality.