Influence of Aluminum Oxide Conditioning Before Acid Etching on Tooth Surface: an Experimental Study

Arkan Muslim Al Azzawi
Authors Emails are requested on demand or by logging in
Keywords : extracted teeth, phosphoric acid, enamel conditioning.
Medical Journal of Babylon  13:1 , 2016 doi:1812-156X-13-1
Published :15 April 2016

Abstract

Aim of the present study, examination of enamel roughness in palatal aspect of extracted premolars by using aluminum oxide (25%, 27% and 28% µm and phosphoric acid 37%. Twenty of all samples contoured with cylindrical shape forming wax and poured with stone to form cylindrical shape and palatal surface remain fully visible and this surface cleaned and polished with plastic cup and pumice and rinsed with distal water and dried with air. Data divided to 4 group each one is 5 extracted teeth and variable assessed by picture captured before and after adding conditioning material by using camera, light microscope,analyzed by Autocad 3D max and electronic microscope with its three dimensional software. The result of this article clearly there is significant difference between groups with different conditioning materials also the pattern of enamel surface showing highly significant difference. This study approved that the palatal animal conditioned with aluminum oxide particles of 25%, 27%, and 28% µm before conditioned by acid etch result in greater scratched and introduce more regular pattern than that using of phosphoric acid only.

Introduction

Etching of tooth surface with phosphoric acid was used at the beginning by Buonocore [1]. Since advancement in adherence of resin to tooth surface has been developed, and uses of acid etch technique in all aspect of dentistry became popular, involving orthodontics. Newman [2] was stated the use of acid etch technique as a way to attach orthodontic brackets to the tooth surface. Acid etching technique that used phosphoric acid is most popular technique to prepare tooth surface before bracket bonding [3]. The strength of brackets bond to the tooth depend on quality and quantity of tooth etching generated by acid[3]. The ideal percentage of acid and ideal time for application for better bond and less enamel destruction was studied by many author [4, 5]. On the other hand, to get good bond strength and minimal loss of enamel surface other procedure to prepare tooth surface have been produced like laser, [6], self-etching bond, [7] and aluminum oxide [8]. Enamel preparation is an essential step to produce excellent bond between tooth and bracket [9]. Thus evaluation of prepared enamel is very important for understanding and advancement of bonding system. [10]. Moreover placement of bracket in lingual aspect of the tooth has requested when esthetic value very important for the patient during course of orthodontic treatment. Several studieswere conducted to evaluate uses of aluminum oxide beforeorthophosphoric acid conditioning of enamel on buccal surface and disregard palatal aspect. [11]. In regard to present study examination of enamel roughness in palatal aspect of extracted premolars by using aluminum oxide (25%, 27% and 28% µm and phosphoric acid 37%.

Materials and methods

The sample of 60 maxillary premolars were collected from specialized dental center from patients already need orthodontic treatment. These teeth extracted and stored in distal water immediately after extraction to ovoid dryness, water changed each 7 days to ovoid bacterial growth. The inclusion criteria were each maxillary premolars free of caries, wear, and other noticeable defect and all teeth cleaned with tooth brush under tab water (fig 1). Twenty of all samplescontoured with cylindrical shape forming wax and poured with stone (Zemack Italy) to form cylindrical shape and palatal surface remain fully visible and this surface cleaned and polished with plastic cup and pumice and rinsed with distal water and dried with air as shown in figure 1. The variable of this study was the following:
1.    Lingual enamel roughness was evaluated at two time frames before and after application of phosphoric acid37% [ER1 and ER2].
2.    Average of roughness [ER3].
3.    Level of roughness [ER4].




Results

Table 1clarifying the descriptive statistics of enamel roughness assessments before and after application of various conditioning materials (ER1,ER2). This table showing that the mean value of enamel surface roughness before application of conditioning material (ER1) lesser than enamel surface roughness after application of conditioning material (ER2), for all groups and all conditioning materials. While Table 2definitely showing mean and standard deviation of enamel roughness went up after application of conditioner. All conditioning material lead to increase of enamel roughness (p < 0.0001), but enamel roughness by sandblast procedure with different micrometer (25%, 27%, 28%) was greater than that of control group with only phosphoric acid as conditioner. By examine data by electron microscope showing that there is no changes in morphology of enamel conditioned with acid etch only for control group. On the other hand its clarify there is uniform path of conditioning in regard to aluminum oxide with different particles and the surface were scratched and has many hump with smooth rounded edges, as shown in figure 2.

Discussions

Enamel roughness variable is significantly went up after different conditioning materials with p value <0.0001 particularly stated the control group in which enamel conditioned by phosphoric acid 35% had less enamel roughness than the other groups that conditioned with aluminum oxide before phosphoric acid application. This come in fully agreements with Robels et al [12], and disagreed with Reisner et al [13] this is may be due to different standardization method. Enamel conditioned with phosphoric acid alone shows no changes in morphology of enamel this come in accordance with Berk et al [6]. while there were uniform paths of conditioning in regard to aluminum oxide with different particles and the surface was scratched and has many humps with smooth rounded edges. This result disagreed with Brosh et al [14] this is may be due to different application procedure of conditioning material, and the result of our study come in accordance with Robles et al [12] in spite of different aluminum oxide particles were used in their study (27, 50, 90) and this approved that uses of aluminum oxide in different particles improve enamel roughness before using of phosphoric acid. To sum up of this study palatal animal conditioned with aluminum oxide particles of 25%, 27%, and 28% µm before conditioned by acid etch result in greater scratched and introduce more regular pattern than that using of phosphoric acid only.

References

1. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955; 34:849-53.
2. Newman GV. Epoxy adhesive for orthodontics attachment a progressive report. Am J Orthod 1965; 51:901-12.
3. Waverin WL, Felzer A, Anderson B. the air abrasion technique versus the conventional acid etching technique: a quantification of surface enamel loss and comparison of shear bond strength. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 2000; 117: 20-6.
4. Chow LC, Brown WE. Phosphoric acid conditioning of teeth for pit and fissure sealants. J Dent Res 1973; 52:1158.
5. Sadowsky PL, Retief DH, Hernandez R, Cox PR, Bradley EL, Rape WG. Effect of etchant concentration and duration on retention of orthodontic brackets. Am J OrtodDentofacialOrthop 1990; 98: 417-21.
6. Berk N, Basaran G, Ozer T. comparison of sandblasting, laser irradiation and conventional acid etching for orthodontic bonding for molar tubes. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30: 183-9.
7. Brauchli L, Zeller M, Wichhelhaus A. Shear bond strengths of 7 self-etching primers after thermocycling. J OrofacOrthod 2011; 72: 371-80.
8. Calneto JP, Castro S, Moura PM, Riberio D, Miguel JA. Influence of enamel sandblasting prior toetching on shear bond strength of indirectly bonded lingual appliances. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 149-52.
9. Medhi S, Mano MC, Sorel O. Enamel micro abrasion. Orthod Fr 2009; 80: 179-92.
10. Watari F. In situ quantitative analysis of etching process of human teeth by atomic force microscopy. J Electron Micrsc 2005; 54: 299-308.
11. Brauchli LM, Baumgartner EM, Ball J, Wichelhaus A. Roughness of enamel surfaces after different bonding and deponding procedure. An in vitro study. J OrofacOrthop 2011; 72: 61-7.
12. Robels JJ, Cimponi AL, Medeiros IS, Kanadshiro LK. Effect of lingual enamel sandblasting with aluminum oxide of different particle sizes in combination with phosphoric acid etching on indirect bonding of ligual brackets. Angle Orthod 2014; 84: 1068-73.
13. Reisner KR, Levitt HL, Mante F. Enamel preparation for orthodontic bonding: a comparison between the use of sandplaster and current techniques. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 1997; 111: 366-73.
14. Brosh GV, Strouthou S, Sarne O. Effects of buccal versus lingual surfaces, enamel conditioning procedures and storage duration on bracket de-bonding, characteristics. J Dent 2005; 33: 99-105.


The complete article is available as a PDF File that is freely accessible. The fully formatted HTML version can be viewed as HTML Page.

Medical Journal of Babylon

volume 13 : 1

Share |

Viewing Options

Abstract
Download Abstract File
( 89 KB )

Related literature

Cited By
Google Blog Search
Other Articles by authors

Related articles/pages

On Google
On Google Scholar
On UOBabylon Rep

User Interaction

442  Users accessed this article in 1 year past
Last Access was at
17/10/2017 13:39:19