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
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.
Comments