DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE

ULTIMATE CERAMIC BRACKET

By Deva Devanathan
Investigation Performed at the Research Laboratories of TP Orthodontics, Inc., LaPorte, Indiana

Abstract: Ceramic brackets have gained widespread acceptance in orthodontic treatment due to their supe-
rior aesthetic appeal. The immediate popularity of these brackets, after their initial marketing, was tempered by
their potential to damage the enamel during debonding. This paper describes the design and development of
a ceramic bracket that addresses the failings of most ceramic brackets on the market today. The advancements
in the design, ability to debond easily and superior bond strength make this bracket a truly unique choice in
the field of aesthetic brackets. This white paper compares the characteristics of this bracket with other leading
ceramic brackets on the market.
Introduction The MXi bracket incorporates an integral polymer mesh base,
which guarantees excellent bonding and also safe debond-
The popularity of ceramic brackets is well documented by ing. While the MXi brackets have demonstrated superior
their rapid acceptance as aesthetic brackets of choice. While clinical performance, a new series of ceramic brackets called
the sales of ceramic brackets are on the rise in recent years, InVu™ has been introduced with significant improvements
plastic brackets have shown a marked decline. After a eu- in product design, low friction, bonding and also reliable
phoric initial product launch, sales of ceramic brackets were and safe debonding characteristics.
almost shut down, due to catastrophic delamination of enamel
during debonding. The overall sentiment in the orthodontic
community was summarized by Dr. Mike Swartz as “Never Design Rationale
before in orthodontics has so much intentional damage to
enamel occurred.”1 Bishara2 writes about the necessary pre- The InVu ceramic bracket has been designed to optimize
cautions when debonding some brackets that have to be various key design parameters, such as:
shattered in the mouth. He also writes about the greater • Profile height (offers the lowest).
susceptibility to cracking with machined ceramic brackets • Low friction (comparable to metal brackets).
that have micro-cracks on the surface. • Ease of debonding (debonds just like metal brackets).
• Good bond strength (only ceramic bracket offering a mesh
In the mid 1990’s two orthodontic companies relaunched base).
ceramic brackets with engineered bases to assure safe de- • Smooth radii on all edges to prevent archwire binding and
bonds. One was the MXi® bracket from TP Orthodontics cutting of elastomerics.
and the other was Clarity, from Unitek. Ceramic brackets in
the market today are listed in Table I. True Twin Bracket Design

InVu incorporates a true twin bracket design (Figure 1). It

TABLE I. Ceramic Brackets

Bracket Name Manufacturer

MXi TP Orthodontics
InVu TP Orthodontics
Clarity Unitek
Signature III RMO
Virage American Orthodontics
Mystique GAC
Inspire Ormco
A B
Figure 1. InVu – Twin bracket design
Deva Devanathan is the Vice President of Research and Development at TP Orthodontics, Inc. He holds a M.S. Degree in Chemical
Engineering from the University of Connecticut and a M.S. Degree in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Texas. Mr. Devanathan has
over 21 years of experience in the development and testing of biomedical polymers and processes. He holds several patents.
has four individual tie wings to allow for various modes of
ligation, i.e. figure 8’s, diagonal, single wing ties, etc. The tie Frictional Resistance – Archwire in Slot
wings provide substantial overhang for reliable ligation
(Figure 1a). Ceramic brackets traditionally show higher frictional resis-
tance as compared to metal brackets. The InVu ceramic brack-
The mesiodistal aspect (arch wire slot length) is wide enough ets are manufactured using an injection molding process,
to permit excellent tip translation and rotational control. The which produces an extremely smooth surface as compared
inter-tie wing space is large enough to allow for bracket to brackets that have machined surfaces (Figure 3) as veri-
position alignment using a flat bladed adjuster (Figure 2). fied by studies.4

InVu — TP Signature III — RMO

Figure 2. Good inter-tie wing clearance

allows for easy bracket positioning.

Profile Height
Virage — American Mystique — GAC
InVu brackets have the lowest profile height of any ceramic
bracket currently available. The profile heights of the vari-
ous brackets in the InVu series are compared to other brack-
ets in Table II. Profile height, especially for mandibular brack-
ets should be kept low. The speed of enamel wear due to
ceramic bracket attrition is well illustrated by J.B. Douglas in
a clinical report.3

TABLE II. Profile Height of Ceramic Brackets (mm)

• Measured on upper lateral brackets
Clarity — Unitek Inspire — Ormco
2.50
2.41
2.34 Figure 3. Comparison of smooth injection molded
2.26 2.26
2.25 surface of InVu to rough machined surface
2.00
2.06 2.06 of other ceramic brackets.

1.75
The smoother, injection molded InVu surface yields a lower
PROFILE HEIGHT (mm)

1.50 friction force as compared to rough machined surfaces.³ InVu

brackets have smooth rounded edges at the mesial and dis-
Signature III (RMO)

1.25
Virage (American)

tal edges of the archwire slots to reduce static friction (Figure

Mystique (GAC)
Inspire (Ormco)

Clarity (Unitek)

1.00 4). Clarity and Virage brackets have a metal insert in the
0.75
archwire slot. The sharp edges of the metal insert can dig
InVu (TP)

into the softer wire material and increase friction (Figure 5);
0.50 thereby reducing tooth movement.
0.25
Friction tests were conducted to evaluate the archwire slot/
0 wire friction force for various brackets. Some manufacturers
claim to achieve sliding friction equal to metal brackets, just

–2–
 InVu™ – Advanced Bonding Mesh Base

InVu ceramic brackets have an advanced bonding base that

replicates the mesh architecture of the mesh in metal brack-
ets (Figure 7). This high strength, polymer mesh base pro-
vides for excellent me-
chanical and chemical
bonding to most orth-
odontic adhesives.
The superior bond
strength of InVu is
Figure 4. InVu has smooth radii at mesial/distal compared to other ce-
edges to prevent archwire entrapment. ramic brackets in Table
IV.

Sharp metal edge digs into Figure 7.

archwire, increasing friction.

TABLE III Friction Force for Ceramic Brackets

• Strain rate 0.12"/min.
20

28
17.3

16

14
Figure 5. Brackets with metal inserts have sharp metal
FRICTION FORCE (gmf )

edges at mesial and distal ends of archwire slot. 12

9.9
10
by inserting a metal insert. The metal inserts introduce rough 8.2
edges which are not found in metal brackets. This explains 8
7.1
why some brackets with metal inserts actually do worse than

Signature III (RMO)

6

Mystique (GAC)
metal brackets in sliding friction characteristics.

Inspire (Ormco)
Virage (Amer.)
4.2 4.5
4.1
4
InVu (TP)
S. Steel

(Unitek)
Clarity

2
Friction Testing
0
Friction force was determined by pulling a 0.022" archwire
through a ligated slot. Continuous irrigation (artificial sa-
liva) simulated in-vitro lubrication. The strain rate was 0.12"/
min with a travel length determined by establishment of equi-
librium friction forces (Figure 6). The friction forces from TABLE IV. Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets
various brackets are shown in Table III. • All tests done on upper right laterals
• Strain rate 0.2" min. • No. of test samples = 5
50
42

40 39
F – Friction Force 38

33
BOND STRENGTH (lbs.)
FRICTION FORCE (gmf )

30
Stainless Steel Bracket

22 23
21
Signature III (RMO)

20
Virage (American)

Mystique (GAC)

Inspire (Ormco)
Clarity (Unitek)

InVu (TP)

10

Figure 6. Friction Force Measurements

–3–
 Conclusion:

InVu is a superior ceramic bracket that offers maximum per- References

formance at avalue price point. It offers a low profile, twin
design for maximum comfort and rotational control. It offers 1. Swartz M., “Ceramic brackets: Caution—Handle with
very low friction on par with metal brackets primarily be- care” presented at the SAO, Orlando, FL, Oct. 6, 1990
cause of its smooth injection molded surface. Binding of
2. Bishara S.E., “Ceramic Brackets: A Clinical Perspective”
archwires on the mesial and distal edges of the slots is elimi-
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2 or 3, World Journal of Orthodontics, pg. 61-
nated due to large radii at all mating edges. InVu offers the
66.
crystal mesh base, which has proven excellence in debond-
ing over the past six years in thousands of patients. Being 3. Douglas J.B., “Enamel wear caused by Ceramic brackets”
the only ceramic bracket that has a mesh base similar to A.J.O. Dentofac Ortho. Feb, 1989 pg. 96-98
metal base brackets, excellent bond strength is achieved
repeatedly. InVu ceramic brackets have addressed the major 4. Omana H.M., Moore R.N., Bagby M.D., “Frictional prop-
problems that orthodontists have experienced over the past erties of metal and Ceramic brackets” Vol. XXVI, No.7,
10 years, and is well on its way to setting new standards for J.C.O., July, 1992.
excellence in clinical performance.

100 Center Plaza

LaPorte, Indiana 46350-9672
Tel: 800-348-8856 or 219-785-2591 Fax: 219-324-3029
Internet: www.tportho.com E-Mail: tportho@tportho.com

–4– 996-372E 4/03