Indenatl treatemnt cases where there is a strong possibility of failure from non surgical treatment or failure has resulted from non surgical endodontic treatment or treatment is impossible or would not achieve a better result, or persistent presence of chronic inflammation at the root apex has hindered the better prognosis of the endodontic treatment , apicoectomy followed by retrograde filling is a well established procedure1 . Endodontic surgery usually consists of exposure of the involved apex, root resection, root end preparation and root-end filling. The ideal root-end filling material should be easy to manipulate, radiopaque, dimensionally stable, non-absorbable, and not affected by the presence of moisture or blood directly. It should also adhere to the preparation walls and seal the root canal system, be biocompatible, be non-toxic, well tolerated by the periapical tissues and promote healing[2]. Many materials have been suggested for root-end filling material including amalgam, reinforced zinc oxide eugenol, composite resin, gutta percha, zinc oxide eugenol, gold foil and glass ionomer cement. Dental amalgam is a successful material but not so popular, perhaps because of its marginal leakage and expansion on setting when used as a root-end material[3]. A new material, mineral trioxide aggregate, is found to be absolutely non cytotoxic whereas gallium alloy has displayed little cytotoxicity and ketac silver (a metal modified glass ionomer cement), super EBA and amalgam showed higher levels of toxicity, when used as root-end filling materials[4]. Hence, in this present study, we are going to evaluate the electrical and dye leakage tests of the most commonly used retrograde filling materials like mineral trioxide aggregate (Pro Root MTA-Dentsply), reinforced zinc oxide eugenol cement -super ethoxy benzoic acid cement (regular set, Harry Bosworth Co. Skokie,IL), and a metal modified glass ionomer cermet cement (Ketac Silver Applicap- 3M ESPE).