ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Failure mode analysis of ceramic brackets

bonded to enamel
Theodore Eliades, DDS," Anthony D. Viazis, DDS, MS, b and Maria Lekka, DDS, Dr. Odont. ~
Athens, Greece, and Dallas, Texas

The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro the failure pattern of ceramic brackets bonded to
enamel with a light-cured orthodontic adhesive. Five types of ceramic brackets and 125 incisors
were used in the study. The brackets were bonded onto enamel with a light-cured orthodontic
adhesive. After 1 week storage and thermal cycling, the samples were debonded by one operator
according to the individual technique for each bracket group proposed by each manufacturer. The
fracture surfaces were examined under a stereomicroscope to reveal the type of failures. The effect
of the debonding procedure on enamel structure was significantly affected by the various bonding
mechanisms of the bracket bases. Cohesive enamel fractures were detected from brackets that
provided a bonding mechanism of micromechanical retention and chemical adhesion. The brackets
that combined mechanical retention and chemical adhesion, presented both cohesive resin fractures
and fractures located at the bracket resin or the resin enamel interface. The higher frequency of
cohesive bracket fractures was obtained from a monocrystalline bracket. (AMJ ORTHOD DEN'I'OFAC
ORTHOP 1993;104:21-6.)

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The superior esthetics of ceramic brackets
have made them an integral part of the orthodontic
clinical practice. Although most o f the problems with
their clinical biocompatibility have been recognized and
addressed extensively in the literature, J-~ little evidence
exists regarding the failure pattern of the second gen-
eration of ceramic brackets and their effect on enamel
structure during debonding, with the techniques ad-
vocated by the manufacturers. The initial wide distri-
bution and the use of ceramic brackets, along with the
alarming reports regarding their performance during
treatment and on debonding, -'12 led to extensive inves-
tigations by the manufacturing companies. As a result
of this work, brackets with suggested better clinical
performance, especially during debonding, are now
available on the market.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro
in simulated clinical debonding conditions, the failure
mode of these new ceramic brackets, as well as to
investigate the effect on enamel of the various debond-
ing procedures recommended by the individual manu-
facturers.
"Research Fellow, Research Center for Biomateria|s, Athens, Greece.
bAssistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, 13aylorCollege of Dentistry,
Dullas, Texas.
~Lecturer, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Athens, Alhens,
Greece.
Copyright 9 1993 by the American Associatim~ of Orthodm~tists.
0889-5406/93/$l.00 + 0.10 S/1/29.239
Five types of ceramic brackets were introduced in the
study. Their commercial names, composition, and bonding
mechanism are shown in Table I.
One hundred twenty-five extracted incisors were used for
the evaluation of the debonding procedure on enamel under
simulated clinical conditions. The teeth were embedded in
fast-setting acrylic resin that left their labial surfaces free and
were divided into five groups (A, B, C, D, E) of 25 samples
each. The enamel surfaces were subjected to prophylaxis with
a fluoride-free pumice and then were etched with a 37%
orthophosphoric gel tbr 40 seconds. A visible light-cured
orthodontic adhesive (Heliosit-Orthodontic, Vivadent,
Schaan, Liechtenstein) was used for bracket bonding onto
enamel and was exposed from both cervical and incisal di-
rections to a visible light curing unit (Espe Visio, Espe GmbH,
Seefeld, Federal Republic of Germany) for 2 • 20 seconds.
Group A was treated with Allure brackets, group B with
Fascination brackets, group C with Starfire brackets, group
D with Transcend brackets, and group E with Transcend 2000
brackets.
All the samples were immersed in normal saline for 1
week at 37 ~ _ 1~ C to obtain diffusion equilibrium. Thermal
cycling for 200 times between 5~ to 60 ~ C at 2 cycles per
minute was used to simulate accelerated aging by thermally
induced stresses. The samples were then. placed between the
jaws of a universal clamp and debonded by one operator
according to the manufacturers' directions. Table 1I sum-
marized the debonding conditions for each type of bracket.
The debonded surfaces of both the brackets and the
enamel were examined under a stereomicroscope to reveal
the types of failure. The failures were characterized as fol-
lows: type I - - f o r cohesive resin fractures; type I I - - f o r co-

21
22 Eliades, Viazis, and Lekka American Journal t( Orthodonticsand DentofiwialOrthopedics
July 1993

Table I. The brackets used in the study

Bracket type Composition I Bonding mechanism

Allure (GAC International Cen- Polycrystalline AlaO3, silane Mechanical retention and
ral Islip, N.Y.) coated base chemical adhesion
Fascination (Dentaurum, Pforz- Polycrystalline At.,O~, silane Micromechanical retention and
helm, Federal Republic of coated base chemical adhesion
Germany)
Starfire Monocrystalline A 1,O.~, Chemical adhesion
("A" Company, San Diego, silane coated base
Calif.)
Transcend (Unitek/3M. Monro- Polycrystalline AI_,O~, silane Micromechanical retention and
via, Calif.) coated base chemical adhesion
Transcend 2000 (Unitek/3M, Polycrystalline A1_,O3, with- Micromechanical retention
Monrovia, Calif.) out silane coated base

Table II. Debonding procedures for the
tested brackets
Bracket l Debonding procedure
Allure Sharp EMT 346 instrument, applied at the
bracket-enamel interface with force ap-
plied in a mesial distal direction.
Fascination Weingart pliers 003-120 applied at the
mesial-distal sides of the bracket.
Removal with torque.
Starfirc Starfire debonding pliers with shields.
(CAT. No. 079-960).
Transcend Transcend debonding instmment according
to directions (torque).
Transcend 2000 Transcend 2000 instrument according to
directions (tensile force).
hesive enamel fractures; type Ill--for cohesive bracket frac-
tures; and type IV--for adhesive resin fracture at the bracket-
resin (a), or the resin-enamel (b) interface.
The statistical analysis of the results was performed by
total and paired chi-square analyses at 0.1 ~ significance level.
RESULTS
Table III presents the rates of failures that were
obtained after both the bracket base and the enamel
examination. In group A most of the failures were lo-
cated at the bonding resin layer followed by partial
adhesive resin fractures at the bracket-resin interface
(Fig. 1). This pattern was followed in frequency by
adhesive resin fractures at the bracket-resin interface
with some resin entrapped in the recesses provided by
the base for mechanical anchoring (Fig. 2). In one case,
the wings of the bracket were broken, leaving the base
bonded to the enamel (Fig. 3). An explanation might
be given on the basis of a possible defect of the structure
of the bracket located at this area. Consequently, forces
transferred through the bracket, initiated crack growth
and propagation, and resulted in this type of failure.
In group B, usually the failure pattern involved the
resin-enamel interface. However, in three cases, severe
enamel cohesive failure was detected after debonding
(Fig. 4).
Group C presented failures predominating at the
bracket-resin interface with partial cohesive resin frac-
tures (Fig. 5). However, in three cases, cohesive
bracket failure occurred (Figs. 6, 7).
Group D manifested failures at the adhesive-enamel
interface combined with partial adhesive resin fractures
at the bracket-resin interface and resin cohesive failures.
A debonded bracket of group D is shown in Fig. 8.
Most of the resin was removed with the bracket base.
In three cases, enamel cracking was detected after de-
bonding (Fig. 9). The cracking propagated throughout
the contact area of the bracket with the enamel.
The brackets of group E revealed more frequently
failures of types I and IVa. The debonded bracket bases
usually removed a slight amount of resin, leaving the
rest adherent on enamel (Figs. 10, 11).
Table IV summarizes the results of the statistical
analysis. The total chi-square value implies a very sig-
nificant correlation between the types of failure and the
type of the bracket used at a probability level of 0.01%.
Paired chi-square analysis showed that statistical sig-
nificant differences are noted in the pairs of groups, A-
D, B-C, B-E, C-D, and D-E.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study could be well corre-
lated with previous data reported on the structure and
bonding mechanism of ceramic brackets bonded to
enamel.3'4'7-9
The base of Allure brackets is fiat, covered with a
silane layer with six recesses for mechanical anchor-
ing. 7.~ This structure minimized the parameter of me-
chanical retention compared with Transcend brackets,
which is equipped with both micromechanical retention
and chemical adhesion.~4 The effect on the failure pat-
tern is well defined in Table IV. It seems like the pro-
American Journal of Orthodontit's toul Dentofacitd Orthopedics Eliades, Viazis, and Lekka 23
Volume 104,No. 1

Fig. 1. Bulk cohesive resin and partial adhesive bracket resin failure of group A bracket (Allure).
(Original magnification •

Fig. 2. Adhesive fracture at bracket resin interface of group A bracket (Allure). The recesses of the
bracket base are filled with adhesive layer. (Original magnification • 4.)

Fig. 3. Cohesive bracket failure of bracket base (Group A, Allure). The wings were removed during
debonding leaving the bracket base (arrow) bonded to enamel. (Original magnification x 4.)

Fig. 4. Cohesive enamel fracture of group B bracket (Fascination). (Original magnification

x2.5.)

Fig. 5. Adhesive resin fracture at the bracket-resin interface (group C, Slarfire). The a r r o w shows a
small part of the adherent resin. (Original magnification • 2.)

Fig. 6. Cohesive bracket failure of group C bracket Starfire). The arrows show the periphery of the
broken base. (Original magnification • 4.)

Table III, F r e q u e n c y a n d t y p e s o f o b s e r v e d failures

Groups I [ H [ IH IVa IVb

A (Allure) 13 1 7 4
B (Fascination) 9 3 13
C (Starfire) l0 3 11 I
D (Transcend) 7 2 16
E (Transcend 2000) 14 I 8 2
 American Journal r Orthodontics ,rod Delttofitcial Orthopedi~
24 Eliades, Viazis, and Lekka Jttly 1993

Fig. 7. Profile of cohesive bracket failure of group C bracket (Starfire). (Original magnifi-
cation x 4.)

Fig. 8. Adhesive resin fracture at resin-enamel interface of bracket of group D (Transcend). (Original
magnification x 4.)

Fig. 9. Cohesive enamel fracture after debonding bracket of group D (Transcend). Arrows show enamel
cracking. (Original magnification x4.)

Fig. 10. Cohesive resin fracture of bracket of group E (Transcend 2000). Arrow shows a small part of
adherent resin. (Original magnification • 4.)

Fig. 11. Detail of group E bracket (Transcend 2000) after debonding. Partial coating of the protruding
crystals of the bracket base by resin fractures. (Original magnification x 50.)

truding crystal structure of Transcend brackets covered
with the silane layer reinforce the adhesive layer that
fractures at higher values than the resin-etched enamel
strength, resulting in crack growth during debonding. J,l
Consequently, tooth damage may occur.
The same principle of micromechanical bonding
through the polycrystalline protruding structure of Tran-
scend brackets in Transcend 2000 brackets but without
silane coating and with greater crystal structures results
in a significant change in the failure pattern minimizing
the possibility for enamel fracture. However, this design
increases the amount of resin left on enamel compared
with Transcend brackets.
The structure of Fascination brackets is relatively
similar to Transcend brackets from which it does not
differ significantly in the failure mode.
American Jtntnlal of OrthodonlicsaJtdDoslofacial Orthopedics Eliades, Viazis, and Lekka 25
Volume 1134,No. 1

Table IV. Statistical significant values from the tested parameters

Contingency Cramers
Groups I)(2 ] 1) level DE coefficient V
Total X: 59.54 ~0.01% 16 0.568 0.345
Paired X2
A*D
(Allure-Trauscend) 19.00 ~0.08% 4 0.525 0.616
B-C
(Fascination-Startire) 27.38 ~0.01% 4 0.595 0.739
B-E
( Fascination-Transcend 20t)0) 18.15 ~0.1% 4 0.516 0.603
C-D
(Starfire-Transcend) 29.77 ~0.01% 4 0.611 0.772
D-E
(Transcend-Transcend 2000) 21.56 ~0.02% 4 0.549 0.657

The group C treated with Starfire brackets presented
the higher rate of cohesive bracket fractures. This may
be explained by the monocrystalline structure of the
bracket that is enriched in Griffith flaws, which act as
sites for crack propagation and fracture. 8 This inherent
defect of this bracket structure is well defined in Fig.
6, where cohesive fracture is detected in the base of
the bracket. Such failure pattern was not detected in
the cases of the other types of cohesive bracket failures,
where the failure was associated with the geometry of
the bracket (e.g., in Fig. 3 where the fracture was
located at the neck of the bracket, under the wings).
An additional parameter that affects the failure pat-
tern is the debonding technique. 7 Torque, shear or ten-
sile forces applied by the clinician, differentiate the
concentration and the gradients of the stresses trans-
ferred through the bracket to the bracket adhesive
enamel interface. 7 However, this variable was excluded
by applying the technique proposed by the manufac-
turers.
It nmst be noted that the new bracket base of the
Transcend 2000 appears to be "safer" when com-
pared with the original Transcend bracket. No tooth
failures were noted in this study with the Transcend
2000 brackets (Table III). Both the Fascination bracket
and the original Transcend bracket caused enamel fail-
ure, which is in accordance with the lindings of previous
investigations.8.~4
The new generation of the Starfire brackets also
appeared to have been improved. There were less co-
hesive bracket failures (Table III) than previously re-
ported.8
The Allure brackets seem to demonstrate quite safe
modes of fi'acture on debonding (Table III). Their bond
strength appears to be strong enough to bond to the
enamel throughout the length of treatment without corn-
promising the integrity of the tooth on debonding, s As
supported by previous investigators, 9 the Allure bracket
may be the ceramic bracket system of choice for both
predictability and bond strength. For those clinicians
still using the original Transcend or the Fascination
brackets, a more flexible, lower filled adhesive may be
the answer to lower bond strength and prevention of
enamel fractures.
CONCLUSION
According to the results of this study:
1. The enamel involvement and possible tooth
damage during simulated clinical debonding of
various ceramic brackets is significantly affected
by the bonding mechanism provided by each
bracket.
2. The most adverse effect on enamel integrity was
obtained after debonding brackets combin-
ing micromechanical retention and chemical
adhesion.
3. Cohesive bracket failures occun'ed more fre-
quently in the group of monocrystalline
brackets.
REFERENCES
1. Swartz ML. Ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod 1988;22:82-8.
2. Scott GE. Fracture toughness and st~rfaec cracks: the key to
understanding ceramic brackets. Angle Orthod 1988;1:3-8.
3. Odegaard '1, Segnes D. Shear bond strength of ,netal brackets
compared with a new ceramic bracket. AM J ORTHOD DEN'I'OFAC
ORTItOP 1988;94:201-6.
4. Gwinnett AJ. A comparison of shear bond strengths of metal
and ceramic brackets. AM J ORTHOI) DEN'roIr^C.ORTIIOP 1998;93:
346-8.
5. Viazis AD, DeLoag R, Beris RR, Douglas WH, Speidel TM.
Enamel surface abrasion from ceramic orthodontic brackets: a
special case report. AM J OWI'HOD DEIslTO'FAC ORT|IOP
1989;96:514-8.
6. Viazis AD, DeLong R, Beris RR, Rudney TD, Pintado MR.
26 Eliades, Viazis, and Lekka American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
July 1993

Enamel abrasion from ceramic orthodontic bracket~ under an
artificial oral environment. AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP
1990;98:103-9.
7. Bishara SE, Trulove TS. Comparisons of different debonding
techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. AM J ORTHOD
DEN'rOFAC ORT~OF' t990;98:263-73.
8. Viazis AD, Cavanaugh G, Beris RR. Bond strength of ceramic
brackets under shear stress: an in 'vitro report. A~ J ORTHOD
DEN'rOFAC OP:VHOP 1990;98:214-21.
9. Britton JC, Mclnnes P, Weinberg R, Ledoux WR, Relief DH.
Shear bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel.
AM J ORTHOD D~NTOFAC ORTI-IOP 1990:98:348-53.
10. Angolkar PV, Kapila S, Duncanson MG, Nanda RS. Evaluation
of friction between ceramic brackets and orthodontic wires of
four alloys. AM J Or~THODDEN'rOFACOR'mOP 1990;98:499-506.
11. Kusy RP, Whitley TQ. Coefficients of friction for arch wires in
stainless steel and polycrystalline alumina bracket slots. Part I.
The Dry State. AM J ORTHOD DZN'rOVACOR~OP 1990;98:300-
12.
12. Pratten DH, Popli K, Germane N, Gunsolley JC. Frictional re-
sistance of ceramic and stainless steel orthodontic brackets. AM
J ORTHODDENTOFACOR'mOP 1990;98:398-403.
13. Harris AMP, Joseph VP, Rossoun E. Comparison of shear bond
strength of orthodontic resins to ceramic and metal brackets.
J Clin Orthod 1990;24:725-8.
14. Eliades T, Viazis AD, Eliades G. Bonding of ceramic brackets
to enamel: morphological and structural considerations. AM J
OrcrHoD DENTOFACOrrnaoP 1991;99:369-75.
Reprint requests to:
Dr. Anthony D. Viazis
Baylor College of Dentistry
Department of Orthodonfes
3302 Boston Ave.
Dallas, TX 75246

AAO MEETING C A L E N D A R
1994--Orlando, Fla., April 30 to May 4, Orange County Convention and Civic Center
1995--San Francisco, Calif., May 13 to 18, Moscone Convention Center
{International Orthodontic Congress)
1996--Denver, Colo., May 11 to 15, Colorado Convention Center
1997pPhiladelphia, Pa., May 3 to 7, Philadelphia Convention Center
1998pDallas, Texas, May 16 to 20, Dallas Convention Center
1999--San Diego, Calif., May 15 to 19, San Diego Convention Center