Comparative Evaluation of Hydrofluoric Acid Etchants on a 3D-Printed Lithium Disilicate-Filled Polymer Resin
5 affiliations
- 1School of Dental Medicine, Ponce Health Sciences University, Ponce 00716, Puerto Rico
- 2Division of Operative Dentistry, Department of General Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN 38103, USA
- 3Interdisciplinary Research Laboratory (LII), Nanostructures and Biomaterials Area, National School of Higher Studies (ENES), National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), Leon 37684, Guanajuato, Mexico
- 4College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
- 5Department of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia
Abstract
Background: This in vitro study compared the effects of four commercial hydrofluoric acid etchants with different nominal concentrations on the surface roughness of a 3D-printed lithium disilicate-filled polymer resin, evaluated after post-polymerization without debinding or sintering. Methods: Seventy-five specimens were randomly assigned to five groups (n = 15): G1, 4.5% hydrofluoric acid (IPS Ceramic Etching Gel, Ivoclar); G2, 4% hydrofluoric acid (Porcelain Etchant, Bisco); G3, 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (Porcelain Etchant, Bisco); G4, 9% hydrofluoric acid (Porcelain Etch, Ultradent); and G5, an unetched control. Etchants were applied for 20 s. Areal surface roughness (Sa) was measured using non-contact optical profilometry. Data were analyzed using Levene’s test, conventional and Welch’s analyses of variance, and Games–Howell pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). Results: Both analyses of variance identified significant differences among groups (p < 0.001). All pairwise comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Mean Sa values were 0.1558 ± 0.0159 µm for G5, 0.3159 ± 0.0313 µm for G1, 0.5093 ± 0.0467 µm for G2, 0.7243 ± 0.0409 µm for G3, and 0.9365 ± 0.0408 µm for G4. The 9% Ultradent etchant produced the greatest roughness, approximately six times the control value. Conclusions: All etchants significantly increased surface roughness. However, the ranking did not follow nominal acid concentration, and differences in commercial formulations prevent attribution of the observed effects to concentration alone. These findings characterize surface modification of a 3D-printed lithium disilicate-filled polymer resin and should not be generalized to conventional lithium disilicate ceramics. Further studies are needed to determine whether these topographic changes improve subsequent adhesive bond strength or long-term durability.
Related
- Anomalous correlations between ionic conductivity isotherms and phase diagrams in hydrofluoric and acetic acid aqueous systems
- Design and Finite Element Evaluation of a Customized 3D-Printed Wrist-to-Finger Orthosis Targeting Carpal Tunnel Pressure Reduction
- Development and validation of an ICP-MS method using ammonium fluoride to replace hydrofluoric acid for analysis of cosmetic ingredients
- Comparative evaluation of long-term corona- and environmentally-aged high-temperature vulcanized silicone rubber nano-composites
- Comparative Evaluation of Nickel-Plated Steel Wool and Nickel Strip Electrodes for Hydrogen Production from Non-Potable Water Sources
BibTeX
@article{rojasrueda2026comparative,
title = {{Comparative Evaluation of Hydrofluoric Acid Etchants on a 3D-Printed Lithium Disilicate-Filled Polymer Resin}},
author = {Silvia Rojas-Rueda and Fabio Luiz Andretti and Carlos A. Jurado and Rene Garcia-Contreras and Jose Vivaldi and Abdullah Almansour and Hamad Algamaiah and Abdulrahman Alshabib},
journal = {Polymers},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3390/polym18212748},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/18/21/2748},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparative Evaluation of Hydrofluoric Acid Etchants on a 3D-Printed Lithium Disilicate-Filled Polymer Resin
AU - Silvia Rojas-Rueda
AU - Fabio Luiz Andretti
AU - Carlos A. Jurado
AU - Rene Garcia-Contreras
AU - Jose Vivaldi
AU - Abdullah Almansour
AU - Hamad Algamaiah
AU - Abdulrahman Alshabib
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/04
JO - Polymers
DO - 10.3390/polym18212748
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/18/21/2748
AB - Background: This in vitro study compared the effects of four commercial hydrofluoric acid etchants with different nominal concentrations on the surface roughness of a 3D-printed lithium disilicate-filled polymer resin, evaluated after post-polymerization without debinding or sintering. Methods: Seventy-five specimens were randomly assigned to five groups (n = 15): G1, 4.5% hydrofluoric acid (IPS Ceramic Etching Gel, Ivoclar); G2, 4% hydrofluoric acid (Porcelain Etchant, Bisco); G3, 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (Porcelain Etchant, Bisco); G4, 9% hydrofluoric acid (Porcelain Etch, Ultradent); and G5, an unetched control. Etchants were applied for 20 s. Areal surface roughness (Sa) was measured using non-contact optical profilometry. Data were analyzed using Levene’s test, conventional and Welch’s analyses of variance, and Games–Howell pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). Results: Both analyses of variance identified significant differences among groups (p < 0.001). All pairwise comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Mean Sa values were 0.1558 ± 0.0159 µm for G5, 0.3159 ± 0.0313 µm for G1, 0.5093 ± 0.0467 µm for G2, 0.7243 ± 0.0409 µm for G3, and 0.9365 ± 0.0408 µm for G4. The 9% Ultradent etchant produced the greatest roughness, approximately six times the control value. Conclusions: All etchants significantly increased surface roughness. However, the ranking did not follow nominal acid concentration, and differences in commercial formulations prevent attribution of the observed effects to concentration alone. These findings characterize surface modification of a 3D-printed lithium disilicate-filled polymer resin and should not be generalized to conventional lithium disilicate ceramics. Further studies are needed to determine whether these topographic changes improve subsequent adhesive bond strength or long-term durability.
SN - 2073-4360
ER -