ArticleOdontology2026
Effect of resin remnant removal techniques on enamel and composite restoration surfaces after orthodontic debonding.
Article in Odontology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In an in vitro model, this study compared three resin-remnant removal technique combinations on enamel and adjacent resin-composite restoration surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding and evaluated whether adhesive type or ×6 magnification altered outcomes. A total of 180 extracted maxillary central incisors were restored with a nano-ceramic composite, and brackets were bonded across the enamel-restoration junction using Transbond XT, Transbond Plus Color Change, or Brackfix (n = 60 each). Specimens were thermocycled after restoration and again after bracket bonding. After debonding, residual resin was removed using: (1) tungsten carbide bur followed by multistep discs/spirals; (2) zirconia bur followed by polyamide bur; or (3) 53-µm alumina air-abrasion followed by bioactive-glass air-polishing. Surface roughness (arithmetical mean roughness, Ra) and total material loss, measured volumetrically, were co-primary outcomes; FESEM was qualitative illustrative support. Magnification and adhesive type did not significantly affect Ra or total material loss, whereas removal technique significantly affected both. Technique 1 produced the lowest Ra (0.36 ± 0.24 μm) and Technique 3 the highest (1.52 ± 0.51 μm). Technique 2 showed the lowest measured total material loss (0.07 ± 0.01 mm³) and Technique 3 the greatest (0.26 ± 0.05 mm³). Under these in vitro conditions, carbide bur plus multistep polishing was associated with the lowest Ra, whereas zirconia plus polyamide bur was associated with the lowest measured total material loss. Because fluorescence-aided visualization was used only within the Brackfix protocol, its independent effect could not be determined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42518057What 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.