ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2026
The enamel loss and adhesive remnants after bracket removal and various adhesive removal methods: an in vitro experimental study.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the effectiveness of various adhesive removal methods following orthodontic bracket debonding. Eighty extracted human premolars were bonded, debonded, and randomly assigned to four groups (n = 20) based on the adhesive removal method: (1) low-speed round tungsten carbide (TC) bur, (2) high-speed, 18-fluted tapered TC bur, (3) high-speed extra-fine needle-shaped diamond bur, and (4) sequential polishing discs. Each group was further subdivided into two subgroups (n = 10) based on the inspection method for surface cleanliness: tactile examination with a dental explorer or marking the surface with a black pencil. Adhesive removal time was recorded for each group, and surface roughness was measured. Pre- and post-treatment tooth surface scans were superimposed using Geomagic Wrap software to quantify enamel loss and residual adhesive height. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). The 18-fluted TC bur had the shortest adhesive removal time (52.80 ± 6.74 s) but caused the greatest enamel loss (70.56 ± 56.44 μm) and highest residual adhesive height (75.60 ± 57.35 μm) (P < 0.05). Surface roughness was significantly higher in the 18-fluted TC bur group (186.20 ± 65.98 μm) than in the polishing disc (123.70 ± 40.64 μm) group (P < 0.05). Adhesive removal time was significantly longer for the polishing disc group (P < 0.05). Using a black pencil for surface inspection did not affect enamel characteristics, but significantly increased treatment time (P < 0.001). A low-speed round-shaped TC bur or an extra-fine needle-shaped diamond bur is recommended for adhesive removal after bracket debonding. Enamel inspection with a dental explorer provides comparable results to black pencil marking regarding enamel preservation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.