This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Kelson PR. Ceramic braces: the wave of the future. Pacific Coast Soc Ortho Bulletin, Spring 1990; 34-36.Search in Google Scholar
Lindquist JT. President’s letter to American Association of Orthodontists: ceramic bracket survey results. Bulletin AAO 1989; 7: 3.Search in Google Scholar
Phillips HW. The advent of ceramics. The editor’s corner. J Clin Orthod 1988; 22: 70-71.Search in Google Scholar
Kusy RP. Morphology of polycrystalline alumina brackets and its relationship to fracture toughness and strength. Angle Orthod 1988; 58: 197-203.Search in Google Scholar
Scott GE. Fracture toughness and surface cracks - the key to understanding ceramic brackets. Angle Orthod 1988; 58: 5-8.Search in Google Scholar
Buonocore MG. A simple method of inreasing the adhesion of acrylic filling material to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955; 38: 849-53.Search in Google Scholar
Gorelick L. Bonding metal brackets with a self-polymerising sealant composite: a 12-month assessment. Am J Orthod 1977; 71: 542-53.Search in Google Scholar
Diedrich P. Enamal alterations from bracket bonding and debonding: A study with the scanning electron microscope. Am J Orthod 1981; 79: 500-522.Search in Google Scholar
Guess MB, Watanabe LG, Beck FM, Crall MG. The effect of silane coupling agents on the bond strength of a polycrystalline ceramic bracket. J Clin Orthod 1988; 22: 788-792.Search in Google Scholar
O’Brien KD, Read MJF, Sandison RJ, Roberts CT. A visible light-activated direct-bonding material: an in vivo comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989; 95: 348-51.Search in Google Scholar
Joseph VP, Rossouw E. The shear bond strengths of stainless steel and ceramic brackets used with chemically and light-activated composite resins. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990; 97: 121-5.Search in Google Scholar
Chaconas SJ, Caputo AA, Niu GSL. Bond strength of ceramic brackets with various bonding systems. Angle Orthod 1991; 61: 35-41.Search in Google Scholar
Barkmeier WW, Gwinnett AJ, Shaffer SE. Effects of enamel etching time on bond strength and morphology. J Clin Orthod 1985; 19: 36-8.Search in Google Scholar
Kinch AP, Taylor H, Warltier R, Oliver RG, Newcombe RG. A clinical study of amount of adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding, comparing etch times of 15 and 60 seconds. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989; 95: 415-21.Search in Google Scholar
Britton JC, Mclnnes P, Winberg R. Ledoux WR, Retief DH. Shear bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990; 98: 348-53.Search in Google Scholar
Fox NA, McCabe JF, Gordon PH. Bond strengths of orthodontic bonding materials: an in-vitro study. Br J Orthod 1991; 18:125-130.Search in Google Scholar
Gwinnett AJ, Gorelick L. Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: clinical application. Am J Orthod 1977;71:651-65.Search in Google Scholar
Andreasen GF. A hazard in direct bonding bracket - a case report. Quintes Int 1981; 6: 569-71.Search in Google Scholar
Bennett CG, Shen C, Waldron JM. The effects of debonding on the enamel surface. J Clin Orthod 1984; 18: 300-334.Search in Google Scholar
Odegaard J. Debonding ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod 1989; 23: 632-635.Search in Google Scholar
Bishara SE, Trulove TS. Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Part II. Findings and clinical implications. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990; 98: 263-73.Search in Google Scholar
Odegaard J, Segner D. Shear bond strength of metal brackets compared with a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988; 94: 201-6.Search in Google Scholar
Harris AMP, Joseph VP, Rossouw E. Comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic resins and ceramic and metal brackets. J Clin Orthod 1990; 24: 725-28.Search in Google Scholar
Viazis AD, Cavanaugh G, Bevis RR. Bond strength of ceramic brackets under shear stress: an in vitro report. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990; 98:214-21.Search in Google Scholar
Iwamoto H, Kawamoto T, Kinoshita A. Bond strength of new ceramic brackets as studied in vitro. J Dent Res 1987; 67: 928.Search in Google Scholar
Ostertag AJ, Dhuru VB, Ferguson DJ, Meyer RA. Shear, torsional and tensile bond strengths of ceramic brackets using three adhesive filler concentrations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991; 100: 251-8.Search in Google Scholar
Lush AM, Hood JAA. Relationship between ceramic bracket bond strenghts and enamel fractures. IADR (ANZ Div) 1990; 48.Search in Google Scholar
Hill CB, McConnell RJ, Hunter WS, Wood DP. Enamel damage following debonding of three ceramic bracket systems. J Dent Res (Special Issue) 1991; 70: 258.Search in Google Scholar
Bamford T. An investigation into the debonding of chemically retained ceramic orthodontic brackets. Brit J Orthod (Research Report) 1991; 18: 67.Search in Google Scholar
Redd TB, Shivapuja PK. Debonding ceramic brackets: effect on enamel. J Clin Orthod 1991; 25: 475-81.Search in Google Scholar
Flores DA, Carusco JM, Scott GE, Jeiroudi MT. The fracture strength of ceramic brackets: a comparative study. Angle Orthod 1990; 60: 269-76.Search in Google Scholar
Ghafari J, Chen SS. Mechanical and SEM study of debonding two types of ceramic brackets. J Dent Res (Abstract of papers) 1990; 69: 338. Abstract No. 1837.Search in Google Scholar
Quo SD, Guess M, Watanabel LG, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ. SEM evaluation of debonded bracket surfaces. J Dent Res (Abstract of papers) 1991; 70: 298. Abstract No. 257.Search in Google Scholar
Winchester LJ. A comparison between the old Transcend and the new Transcend series 2000 bracket. Brit J Ortho 1992; 19: 109-116.Search in Google Scholar
Unitek Corporation/3M. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of Transcend series 2000 ceramic brackets. Technical topics bulletin No.4, 1990; 2.Search in Google Scholar
