Table 3.

Ceramic or Metallic Brackets Bonded to Different New Ceramic Surfaces in Publishing Order

No and Year of Publication	Ceramic Type	Bracket Type	Adhesive Type	Additional Testing	Results
1994[47]	Feldspathic	Ceramic	Silane/ no silane		Sgn difference when silane was used
1999[40]	Amalgam/ precious alloy/ ceramic	Ceramic Transcend / Fascination silanized brackets	APA/ HF 9.6% +Fuji Ortho LC/ Photac Bond (GIC) Control groups used Trandbond or Concise		Both GIC satisfactory SBS, silanized brackets lower SBS, only Fuji on metal alloy, composites obtained higher SBS than GIC s
2005[70]	Finesse Empress 2 all ceramic/ feldspathic Vita Omega	Metallic	Phosphoric acid + silane+ Unite Bond		SBS for Finesse sgn higher, no sgn difference in ARI scores
2006[59]	Feldspathic and lithium disilicate	Metallic	Silane on glazed/ APA 25um/APA 50 um/ HF 9.6%/ 40um diamond bur/ 60um diamond bur	Thermocycling	Lowest SBS HFA sgn difference, highest SBS diamond burs, lithium disilicate higher SBS for all groups
2006[73]	Low fusing and high fusing ceramics	Metallic	Resin removal with multifluted carbide bur with and without polishing discs		No sgn difference between the 2 types of ceramics on debonding force, no difference between clean-up methods
2007[72]	In-Ceram, IPS Impress, ceramo-metal	Metallic			Ceramo-metal and In-Ceram comparable results, IPS_Impress lower SBS sgn
2007[58]	Feldspathic, leucite based, lithia disilicate	Metallic	Sandblasting/sandblasting+HF/sandblasting+silane /sandblasting+HF+silane /tribochemical silica coating+silane	Thermocycling	Lowest SBS sandblasting only, feldspathic and lithia disilicate highest SBS with silica coating, leucite based HF without silane, similar to silica coating.
2010[68]	IPS Empress 2/ In-Ceram alumina	Metallic and ceramic	HF 9.6%/phosphoric acid/sandblasting for all		Acid etching sgn increased SBS, ceramic brackets sgn different fracture pattern at the adhesive-bracket interface
2010[74]	Aluminous and fluorapatite ceramic (Vitadur Alpha/IPS Emax)	Ceramic and metallic	Different bracket bases: beads-Inspire Ice, large round pits Crystalline IVs, irregular base Clarity, optimesh stainless brackets for control		Highest SBS Inspire Ice sgn different than the others, all were satisfactory
2011[72]	Feldspathic, fluoro-apatite, leucite reinforced	Metallic	Air particle abrasion 25 um/ silica coating 30 um	Thermocycling	Lowest SBS air particle abrasion feldspathic and fluoro-apatite, highest SBS silica coating leucite reinforced ceramic, silica coating better overall
2014[67]	Monolithic zirconium oxide ceramic	Metallic	Glazed/polished +air abrasion 30 um/air abrasion 50 um + Monobond Plus+ Transbond XT Primer+Transbond XT		Air abrasion improved SBS
2014[65]	Yttria stabilized tetragonal polycrystalline zirconia	Metallic	RelyX adhesive cement and RelyXUnicemselfadhesive	24h or 6 months at 37 degrees C	Self-adhesive cement RelyXUnicem not able to sustain bond
2016[66]	Feldspathic/ zirconia	Metallic	Sandblasting all groups + 4% HF, Porcelain Conditioner silane Primer/Reliance Assure/ Reliance Assure Plus/Z Prime Plus		Tensile bond strength similar for all groups, silanization after sandblasting, similar to other protocols
2016[56]	CAD/CAM lithium disilicate	Metallic	HFA+Silane/ HFA, deglazed/glazed		HF + silane – acceptable SBS values indifferent of adhesive, but slightly higher on roughened surface
2016[69]	Silica IPS Classic glazed	Metallic	9.6% HF, 9.6% HF+silane/ sandblasting+silane/ tribochemical silica (CoJet) +silane, all TransbondXT		HF alone not sufficient SBS, CoJet + silane and sandblasting+silane higher than the other groups
2017[18]	Y-TZP	Metallic	Abrasion with alumina/ tribochemical silica coating + ESPE-Sil/Alloy Primer/Clearfil/Scotchbond	+/-thermocycling	Thermocycling influences results, better results when mechanically treated
2018[55]	Feldspathic and lithium disilicate	Metallic	Sandblasting, 9.6% HF, Transbond XT/ Assure Plus	thermocycling	Assure Plus better results, minimized damage on lithium disilicate
2018[19]	Lithium disilicate	Ceramic	HF + All Bond Universal/Adhese Universal/ Clearfil Universal Bond/ Single Bond Universal +/- silane	Thermocycling, SEM	Thermocycling influences results. SBS of the silane groups were higher and their microleakage percentages lower than those of the non-pretreated groups
2019[51]	IPS e-max CAD	Ceramic	HF 60 s/S 3 min/HF+S/MDP adhesive followed by resin cement	SEM, fractographic analysis	Monocrystalline brackets with HF or HF+S chowed highest values, Polycrystalline with MDP only – lowest values.
2019[57]	IPS E-max and zirconia	Metallic	E-max HF + MDP primer 1 coat; Zirconia MDP 1/2/3 coats	Thermocycling	E.max and zirconia with 3 MDP primer applications highest SBS
2019[64]	Lithium silicate infused with zirconia (CELTRA® DUO, Zirconia and Lithium disilicate	Metallic	+/- HF		SBS of the lithium silicate infused with zirconia - significantly lower than HF lithium disilicate group. HF may increase SBS in Celtra DUO.
2020[53]	IPS E-max, CAD/CAM, IPS d.Sign Ceramic fused to metal	Metallic	Transbond, Light Bond or Blugloo +/- HF		Significant differences in SBS related to ceramic, surface treatment, and resin cement. HF etching increased SBS.
2019[60]	Lithium disilicate and zirconia	Metallic and ceramic	HF / Phopsphoric acid and silane		HF use on zirconia and lithium-disilicate, does not cause a significant increase in SBS, compared to etching with PhA and silane application. HF can weaken the surface structure.
2019[21]	Zirconia	Ceramic	MDP ceramic primer + orthodontic primer / universal adhesive / MDP ceramic primer + universal adhesive.	Thermocycling	For ceramic brackets to zirconia, ceramic primer used with an orthodontic primer, rather than using a universal adhesive, is recommended.
2020[22]	Lithium disilicate E-max and lithium silicate infused with zirconia (CELTRA® DUO)	Ceramic	aluminium oxide air abrasion + 3 different brackets		Mean SBS of the E-max groups were significantly less than CELTRA® DUO. Only the Symetri bracket was effective for both substrates.