ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
Comparative Evaluation of Novel and Conventional Acid Etchants on the Surface Roughness of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Ceramics.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Evaluation of Novel and Conventional Acid Etchants on the Surface Roughness of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Ceramics.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Establishing a durable bond to high-strength dental ceramics, especially zirconia (Zir), is a clinical challenge. This is due to the material's chemical inertness and its resistance to conventional etching methods. Zir lacks silica, making it unresponsive to traditional hydrofluoric acid (HF) treatments effective for glass ceramics like lithium disilicate (LiDi). This study assesses the efficacy of a novel multiacid etchant in modifying the surface roughness of LiDi and 5 mol% yttria-stabilized Zir (5Y-TZP), comparing its performance against three commercial HF-based etchants. Methods: Four etchants were tested: Zircos-E (EDOS [ZiE]), 9.5% porcelain etchant (Bisco [BIS]), 9% porcelain etch (Ultradent [ULT]), and IPS Ceramic Etching Gel (Ivoclar [IPS]). Each was applied for 20 s, 1 min, and 30 min to LiDi (Amber Mill) and 5Y Zir (IPS e.max ZirCAD Prime MT) specimens ( Results: On 5Y Zir, Zircos-E produced significantly higher surface roughness than all other etchants, reaching 0.378 µm at 30 min ( Conclusions: The novel multiacid etchant is highly effective for treating 5Y Zir, creating a favorable microretentive surface for bonding. However, its aggressive action makes it unsuitable for LiDi, where overetching can compromise structural integrity. Selection of etching agents should be material-specific to optimize clinical outcomes while preserving ceramic quality.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.