Citation Information :
Harsha L, Subramanian AK. Comparative Assessment of pH and Degree of Surface Roughness of Enamel When Etched with Five Commercially Available Etchants: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (2):181-185.
Aim: To evaluate the pH and degree of surface roughness caused by five commercially and readily available etchants on tooth enamel.
Materials and methods: Five different etchants were chosen. An electric pH meter was utilized to test the pH of the etchants employed. Fifteen maxillary bicuspids that had been extracted were cleansed and stored in thymol solution. The samples were sorted into five groups of three each. A noncontact profilometer was employed to assess the microsurface changes of the pre-etched enamel. The teeth were then etched for 30 seconds with respect to the group to which they belonged before being cleaned and dried. The surface roughness after etching was analyzed, measured and values were tabulated. Descriptive statistics and paired t-test were done.
Results: The pH of the etchants and surface roughness of the enamel are varied across the five groups, though they have the same composition of 37% orthophosphoric acid. Etchant from Group C was found to be most acidic while the one manufactured by Group E was least acidic. Ivoclar, DPI, and DTECH showed a statistically significant value in surface roughness parameter post-etching (p <0.05). A statistical difference that was significant was observed with the Kruskal–Wallis test for surface roughness parameter (p <0.05).
Conclusion: All five etchants had varied pH and the amount of surface roughness was also varied though the composition was the same. Further elemental analysis of these etchants has to be done to validate the results obtained.
Clinical significance: Etchants of the same composition should ideally produce the same effect on the tooth enamel surface, but etchants from different manufacturers produce different levels of surface roughness which could be due to differences in the composition of the prepared etchant. The study was conducted to assist in making an educated selection about the most cost-effective but efficient etchant for clinical application.
Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955;34:849–853. DOI: 10.1177/00220345550340060801.
Bhandari DPK, Anbuselvan GJ, Karthi M. Evaluation of resin penetration depth in enamel surface for orthodontic bonding exposed to five types of enamel conditioning methods: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2019;11(2): S221–S227. DOI: 10.4103/JPBS.JPBS_301_18.
Beech DR, Jalaly T. Bonding of polymers to enamel: influence of deposits formed during etching, etching time and period of water immersion. J Dent Res 1980;59:1156–1162. DOI: 10.1177/00220345800590071101.
Shinchi MJ, Soma K, Nakabayashi N. The effect of phosphoric acid concentration on resin tag length and bond strength of a photo-cured resin to acid-etched enamel. Dent Mater 2000;16:324–329. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(00)00024-5.
Munck JD, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, et al. Four-year water degradation of total-etch adhesives bonded to dentin. J Dent Res 2003;82:136–140. DOI: 10.1177/154405910308200212.
Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Hybridization of dental hard tissues. IL: Quintessence Publishing; 1998. 129 p.
Hannig M, Bock H, Bott B, et al. Inter-crystallite nanoretention of self-etching adhesives at enamel imaged by transmission electron microscopy. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110:464–470. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2002.21326.x.
Legler LR, Retief DH, Bradley EL, et al. Effects of phosphoric acid concentration and etch duration on the shear bond strength of an orthodontic bonding resin to enamel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:485–492. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90115-7.
Carstensen W. The effects of different phosphoric acid concentrations on surface enamel. Angle Orthod 1992;62(1):51–58. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1992)062<0051:TEODPA>2.0.CO;2.
Powers JM, Kim HB, Turner DS. Orthodontic adhesives and bond strengthtesting. Semin Orthod 1997;3:147–156. DOI: 10.1016/s1073-8746(97)80065-5.
Qvist V, Qvist J. Replica patterns on composite restorations performed in vitro with different acid-etch procedures and dentin adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci 1987;95(1):87–93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1987.tb01398.x.
Ramesh Kumar KR, Shanta Sundari KK, Venkatesan A, et al. Depth of resin penetration into enamel with 3 types of enamel conditioning methods: a confocal microscopic study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140(4):479–485. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.10.022.
Subramaniam P, Babu KLG, Lakhotia D. Evaluation of penetration depth of a commercially available resin infiltrate into artificially created enamel lesions: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(2):146. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.128054.
Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126(6):717–724. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.032.
Jhalani A, Sidhu MS, Grover S, et al. Effects of two adhesion boosters on depth of penetration of orthodontic adhesive on fluorosed and normal enamel: a confocal microscopic study. J Indian Orthod Soc 2017;51:22–27. DOI: 10.4103/0301-5742.199244.
Barkmeier WW, Gwinnett AJ, Shaffer SE. Effects of reduced acid concentration and etching time on bond strength and enamel morphology. J Clin Orthod 1987;21(6):395–398. PMID: 3298319.
Wang WN, Lu TC. Bond strength with various etching times on young permanent teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:72–79. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70052-x.
Triolo PT Jr, Swift EJ Jr, Mudgil A, et al. Effects of etching time on enamel bond strengths. Am J Dent 1993;6(6):302–304. PMID: 7880481.
Gardner A, Hobson R. Variations in acid-etch patterns with different acids and etch times. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120(1): 64–67. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2001.114643.
Nogawa H, Koizumi H, Saiki O, et al. Effect of a self-etching primer and phosphoric acid etching on the bond strength of 4-META/MMA-TBB resin to human enamel. Dent Mater J 2015;34(2):219–226. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2014-227.
Schatten H. Scanning electron microscopy for the life sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
Gwinnett AJ, Matsui A. A study of enamel adhesives. Arch Oral Biol 1967;12:1615–1646. DOI: 10.1016/0003-9969(67)90195-1.
Buonocore MG, Matsui A, Gwinnett AJ. Penetration of resin dental materials into enamel surfaces with reference to bonding. Arch Oral Biol 1968;13:61–20. DOI: 10.1016/0003-9969(68)90037-x.
Eick JD, Johnson LN, Fromer JR, et al. Surface topography: its influence on wetting and adhesion in a dental adhesive system. J Dent Res 1972;51:780–788. DOI: 10.1177/00220345720510031401.
Hobson RS, Rugg-Gunn AJ, Booth TA. Acid-etch patterns on the buccal surface of human permanent teeth. Arch Oral Biol 2002;47:407–412. DOI: 10.1016/s0003-9969(02)00008-0.
Casas EBL, Las Casas EB, Bastos FS, et al. Enamel wear and surface roughness characterization using 3D profilometry. Tribol Int 2008;41:1232–1236. DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2008.03.008.
Sigel H, Zuberbühler AD, Yamauchi O. Comments on potentiometric pH titrations and the relationship between pH-meter reading and hydrogen ion concentration. Anal Chim Acta 1991;255(1):63–72. DOI: 10.1016/0003-2670(91)85088-A.
Xu X, Hu H. Development of non-contact surface roughness measurement in last decades. In: 2009 International conference on measuring technology and mechatronics automation. vol. 1. IEEE; 2009. p. 210–213.