Table 5 . Studies Investigating Bracket Failure During Laser-Aided Ceramic Bracket Removal .
| Author | Groups | Laser | Brackets Cement | Results Conclusion |
| Oztoprak et al14 |
N=60 2 groups |
Er:YAG
P = 4.2 W. T = 9 s. |
*polycrystalline ceramic bracket *orthodontic composite adhesive Transbond XT |
No bracket fractures |
| Ahrari et al1 |
*n = 80, 4 groups for enamel damage *Group CC = chemical retention/conventional debonding) *Group MC = mechanical retention/conventional debonding *Group CL=chemical retention/laser debonding *Group ML=mechanical retention/laser debonding |
Co
2
WL = 10.6 μm PP = 188 W F = 400 Hz D = 5 mm T = 5 s |
*Fascination polycrystalline ceramic bracket (features chemical retention) *Inspire Ice a monocrystalline ceramic bracket (with mechanical retention) *Transbond XT adhesive |
No bracket fracture Bracket fracture was found in 45% of chemical retention, and 15% of mechanical retention groups debonded with pliers. There were no cases of bracket fracture in the laser-debonded groups. |
| Mundethu et al22 | N = 20 |
Er:YAG
E = 600 mJ WL = 2.94 μm |
*Blugloo adhesive system *Fully polycrystalline bracket system (Damon Clear) |
No bracket failures. |
Abbreviations: n: sample size, WL: wave length, P: power, PP: peak power, T: time, D: distance from bracket, F: frequency, and E: energy.