Effects of a self-etching primer and 37% phosphoric Acid etching on enamel: a scanning electron microscopic study

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the etching effects of a self-etching primer with 37% phosphoric acid on enamel by using a scanning electron microscope. Bond strength and the site of bond failure were also determined for brackets bonded using SEP and 37% phosphoric acid. Materials and methods: A total of 60 maxillary premolar teeth were used for this study and they were divided into four groups. First two groups were used for studying the different types of etch patterns obtained and the next two groups were used to test the bond strength with the help of Universal testing machine. After debonding, the amount of residual adhesive was assessed according to adhesive remnant index using a stereomicroscope. Results: The majority of etch patterns obtained in the 37% phosphoric acid group were type II, whereas in the SEP group, type IV pattern was more common. There was no statistically significant difference between mean bond strengths obtained with the SEP group and the phosphoric acid group. Use of SEP results in less amount of residual adhesive on tooth surface after debonding. Conclusion: SEP produces more conservative etch pattern compared to 37% phosphoric acid. Use of SEP for bonding provides similar and clinically acceptable bond strength compared to use of 37% phosphoric acid etching technique and requires less clean-up procedures hence, reduces enamel loss. Clinical significance: Use of 37% phosphoric acid for orthodontic bonding yields high bond strength but, causes enamel loss during both etching and debonding. SEPs not only provide adequate bond strength with a more conservative etch pattern but also enable easy debonding, thereby reducing the enamel damage. Keywords: Etch pattern, Enamel, SEM, Self-etching primer. How to cite this article: Nanjannawar LG, Nanjannawar GS. Effects of A Self-Etching Primer and 37% Phosphoric Acid Etching on Enamel: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(3):280-284. Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None declared.