# Quick Rinse, Strong Bond? Comparing Short Water Rinsing and Advanced Cleaning Methods After Hydrofluoric Etching of Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic

**Authors:** Viktoria Brandl, Matthias Kern, Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz, Sebastian Wille

PMC · DOI: 10.3390/ma19020299 · Materials · 2026-01-12

## TL;DR

This study found that a short 15-second water rinse after etching lithium disilicate ceramic is as effective as more complex cleaning methods in achieving strong bonds.

## Contribution

The study demonstrates that a simple 15-second water rinse achieves comparable bond strength to advanced cleaning protocols after HF etching.

## Key findings

- A 15-second water spray after HF etching achieved similar total bond strength to more complex cleaning methods.
- Aging for 150 days significantly reduced bond strength across all groups.
- Microleakage and failure modes were not significantly affected by the cleaning method.

## Abstract

This study examined whether short water rinsing after hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching achieves comparable total bond strength (TBS) to more advanced cleaning protocols. Ninety-six lithium disilicate specimens were etched with 5% HF and then assigned to one of six post-etch cleaning methods: a 15 s water spray, 60 s water spray, brushing with a toothbrush, an ultrasonic bath with distilled water, an ultrasonic bath with 99% isopropanol, or a 37% phosphoric acid followed by an ultrasonic bath. The specimens were then bonded to acrylic tubes filled with composite resin. Half of the specimens were stored in water at 37 °C for three days, and the other half were stored for 150 days with 37,500 thermal cycles (5 °C/55 °C). TBS testing, failure mode evaluation, and microleakage testing were performed. Two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test were used for statistical evaluation. Aging for 150 days significantly reduced TBS in all groups. Cleaning with a 60 s water spray resulted in significantly higher TBS than phosphoric acid plus ultrasonic cleaning, regardless of storage time. No significant differences were found among the other cleaning methods. There was no change in microleakage among the different groups; the failure was predominantly cohesive. A 15 s water spray after HF etching was as effective as more complex cleaning protocols in terms of TBS and SEM-observed surface characteristics.

## Linked entities

- **Chemicals:** hydrofluoric acid (PubChem CID 14917), HF (PubChem CID 14917), isopropanol (PubChem CID 3776), phosphoric acid (PubChem CID 1004)

## Full-text entities

- **Chemicals:** Water (MESH:D014867), phosphoric acid (MESH:C030242), isopropanol (MESH:D019840), HF (MESH:D006858), Lithium Disilicate Glass (-)

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12842783/full.md

## Figures

4 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12842783/full.md

## References

33 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12842783/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12842783