Shear bond strength and enamel fracture behavior of ceramic brackets Fascination® and Fascination®2
Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 25, 2026

Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Robert Gittner1, Ralf Müller-Hartwich, Sylvia Engel
1Department of Orthodontics, Dentofacial Orthopedics and Pedodontics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Objective:
The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength and incidence of enamel fractures of the ceramic brackets Fascination® and Fascination®2.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 360 teeth (180 first upper bicuspids and 180 lower incisors) were stored in 96% ethanol, while 360 other teeth (180 first upper bicuspids and 180 lower incisors) were stored in 0.1% thymol. All 720 teeth were bonded one-half each with Fascination® and Fascination®2 brackets using three different adhesives and three different light curing units. The teeth were debonded with a debonding-device according to DIN EN ISO 10477 using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1 mm per minute. The enamel surface was then examined stereomicroscopically (10x and 40x magnification). The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used, since the data were not normally distributed.
Results:
The Fascination®2 brackets provided significantly lower shear bond strength than Fascination® brackets (p = 0.003). Fascination® brackets demonstrated significantly fewer, smaller enamel fractures than Fascination®2 brackets (p = 0.012).
Conclusion:
The lower shear bond strength of the Fascination®2 brackets is clinically acceptable, but our study's experimental design did not enable us to prove whether this is clinically associated with a lower risk of enamel fracture.
Related Concept Videos
Bonding and Strength of Aggregate
Brick Durability, Strength, and Appearance
