Issues‎ > ‎vol7no2‎ > ‎


Enamel Integrity: Base Morphology and Clarity of Debonded Modern Ceramic Brackets

Omar S. Mohammed*

*Department of Preventive Dentistry, Orthodontics, Pedodontics, College of Dentistry, Mosul University, Mosul, Iraq.

Submitted: 04/10/2020; Accepted: 13/06/2020; Published 01/12/2020



Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of base morphology and clarity of modern ceramic orthodontic brackets on adhesion of brackets with enamel surface and enamel surface integrity after debonding.         

Methods: The Scan Electron Microscopy (SEM) was used at high magnification 1000x, and the images were taken for a retentive base of three types of ceramic brackets (Pure, Encore, and Reflections). The degree of light transmission was evaluated, and shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index were evaluated.

Results: SEM exhibited differences in surface morphology of retentive base between tested ceramic brackets. Optical Characteristic showed Pure brackets were significant differences with all tested brackets but not significant between them. One-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference at (p < 0.05) in shear bond strength. The reflections and Encore gave the highest bond strength, while the Pure gave the lowest value. 

Conclusions:  The morphology of the base and clarity of ceramic brackets directly affect the adhesion brackets with enamel surface under the same condition. In addition, the mode of retention plays an important role in the damage of the enamel surface after debonding.


Keywords: Orthodontic ceramic brackets, Clarity, SEM, Shear bond strength, Mode of failure.                                                                                                                                                                                        Full Article - PDF                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   


1. Eliades T, Viazis AD, Lekka M. Failure mode analysis of ceramic brackets bonded to enamel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;104(1):21- 26.
2. Eliades T, Lekka M, Eliades G, Brantley WA. Surface characterization of ceramic brackets: a multi-technique approach. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;105(1):10-18.
3. Swartz ML. Ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1988;22(2):82-89.
4. Viazis AD, DeLong R, Bevis RR, Rudney JD, Pintado MR. Enamel abrasion from ceramic orthodontic brackets under an artificial oral environment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;98(2):103-109.
5. Fox NA, McCabe JF. An easily removable ceramic bracket?. Br J Orthod. 1992;19(4):305-309.
6. Al-Saleh M, El-Mowafy O. Bond strength of orthodontic brackets with new self- adhesive resin cement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(4):528-533.
7. Retief DH, Wendt SL, Bradley E L, Denys F R. The Effect of Storage Media and Duration of Storage of Extracted Teeth on the Shear Bond Strength of Scotchbond 2/Silux to Dentin. Am J Dent. 1989;2(5):269-73.
8. Powes JM, Kim HE, Tuner DS. Orthodontic bond adhesives and bond strength testing. Semin Orthod. 1997;3(3):147-156.
9. Willems G, Carels CE, Verbeke G. In vitro peel/shear bond strength evaluation of orthodontic bracket base design. J Dent. 1997;25(3-4):271- 278.
10. De Pulido LG, power JM. Bond strength of orthodontic direct-bonding cement-bracket systems as study in vitro. Am J Orthod 1983;83(2):124-30.
11. Ansari MY, Agarwal DK, Gupta A, Bhattacharya P, Anser J, Bhandari R. Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs: Comparative In-vitro Study. JCDR. 2016;10(11):ZC64-ZC68.
12. Eliades T, Brantley WA. The inappropriateness of conventional orthodontic bond strength assessment protocols. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22(1):13-23.
13. Chandrika K, Girish K, Syed SH. Shear bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets using conventional acid etch/primer and self‐etch primer. J.D. NTR. 2019;8(2):101-106.
14. Samruajbenjakul B, Kukiattrakoon B. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with different base designs to feldspathic porcelains. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(3):571-6.
15. Gwinnett AJ. Comparison of shear bond strengths of metal and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;93(4):346-348.
16. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2(3):171-178. Vol 7(1) Mohammed 60.
17. Retief DH. Failure at the dental adhesive etched enamel interface. J Oral Rehab. 1974;1(3):265- 284.
18. Liu JK, Chuang SF, Chang CY, Pan YJ. Comparison of initial shear bond strength for plastic and metal brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26(5):431-534.
19. Winchester L. Bond strengths of five different ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod. 1991;13(4):293-305.
20. Buzzitta VAJ, Hallgren SE. Power JM. Bond strength of orthodontic direct-bonding cement- bracket systems as study in vitro. Am J Orthod. 1982;81(2):87-92.
21. Ødegaard J, and Segner D. Shear bond strength of metal brackets compared with a new ceramic bracket. 1988;94(3):201-206.
22. Kitahara-Céia FM, Mucha JN, and Paulo Acioly Marques dos Santos. Assessment of enamel damage after removal of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:548-55.
23. Eliades T, Brantley WA. (2001). Orthodontic Materials: Scientific and Clinical Aspects. 1st Edition. Stuttgart, Germany. Thieme, PP.50,143- 208.

Creative Commons License © The Authors, published by University of Sulaimani, College of Dentistry