{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023222060957910014, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0021770682148040637, 'mean_word_length': 5.413953488372093, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Electron microscopy analysis of different orthodontic brackets and their adhesion to the tooth enamel.

This study proposed to evaluate the surface morphology of different types of orthodontic brackets and the characteristics of their adhesion to the tooth enamel. There have been taken into study six metallic, five ceramic and one polymeric bracket from different brands (Ormco, Lancer, Leone, Damon, 3M, Ultradent, American Orthodontics, Rocky Mountain). The surface base of the each bracket it have been ESEM analyzed using scanning electron microscope Phillips XL-30 ESEM. There have been investigated several parameters that have a potential influence of the bracket-bonding agent interface joint: chemical composition, roughness, surface morphology and wideness. After ESEM analysis, the same metallic and ceramic brackets have been afterwards collated on extracted teeth and subjected to mechanical tests. After the mechanical testing, the samples were once again ESEM investigated. All fractures occurred in the area of the adhesive system, recording adhesive fractures of the tooth-composite resin and composite-bracket, cohesive fractures and both. The metallic brackets surfaces that are optima for a good adhesion is that of a mesh sand blasted and acid etched. From the esthetic brackets, the ceramic ones are superior to polymeric ones regarding bonding to teeth.