{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023387668320340185, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012048192771084338, 'mean_word_length': 5.303571428571429, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?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}}
Bonding Failures of Lingual Orthodontic Brackets: A Retrospective Study Comparing Lingual Brackets with KommonBase Extensions, to Customized Lingual Brackets

The aim of the present study was to evaluate in a clinical setting the bracket survival of lingual brackets bonded with the KommonBase system, and to compare it to the survival of a customized lingual bracket system. Two convenience samples of 13 consecutive patients treated with lingual fixed appliances with KommonBase extensions (Group 1) and 14 consecutive patients treated with customized Incognito™ lingual fixed appliances were retrospectively enrolled (Group 2). First time debondings were recorded from the files. Data were submitted to statistical analysis and a Log-rank test was used to compare the Kaplan–Meier survival curves between the two groups. Statistical significance was set as p < 0.05. Lingual brackets bonded with the KommonBase system showed a failure rate of 8%, while Incognito brackets showed a failure rate of 7.1%. The Log-rank test comparing the Kaplan–Meier survival curves revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.343). Most debondings occurred during the first 6 months. Upper incisors and canines were less prone to debond than premolars and molars. In conclusion, no difference in bracket survival was observed between the KommonBase system and a customized lingual appliance.