Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, e-mail:
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2022 Feb 1;23(2):181-185.
To evaluate the pH and degree of surface roughness caused by five commercially and readily available etchants on tooth enamel.
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 -test were done.
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 ( <0.05). A statistical difference that was significant was observed with the Kruskal-Wallis test for surface roughness parameter ( <0.05).
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.
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.
评估五种市售和现成的牙釉质蚀刻剂对牙釉质的 pH 值和表面粗糙度程度的影响。
选择了五种不同的蚀刻剂。使用电动 pH 计测试所使用的蚀刻剂的 pH 值。将 15 颗上颌双尖牙洗净并储存在麝香草酚溶液中。将样本分为每组三个，共五组。使用非接触式轮廓仪评估预蚀刻牙釉质的微观表面变化。然后，将牙齿根据所属组别蚀刻 30 秒，再进行清洗和干燥。分析、测量和记录蚀刻后的表面粗糙度。进行描述性统计和配对检验。
尽管五种蚀刻剂的组成相同，均为 37%的正磷酸，但蚀刻剂的 pH 值和牙釉质的表面粗糙度在五个组别之间存在差异。组 C 的蚀刻剂最酸，而组 E 的最不酸。Ivoclar、DPI 和 DTECH 在蚀刻后表面粗糙度参数方面具有统计学意义（<0.05）。Kruskal-Wallis 检验显示表面粗糙度参数存在显著差异（<0.05）。
尽管五种蚀刻剂的组成相同，但 pH 值和表面粗糙度值有所不同。需要对这些蚀刻剂进行进一步的元素分析，以验证所得结果。
理想情况下，具有相同成分的蚀刻剂应在牙釉质表面产生相同的效果，但来自不同制造商的蚀刻剂会产生不同程度的表面粗糙度，这可能是由于预备蚀刻剂的成分不同所致。进行这项研究是为了帮助在具有成本效益但高效的临床应用蚀刻剂中做出明智选择。
