Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Orthodontic clean-up following debonding remains a technically demanding procedure, with documented risks of enamel roughening, microdefects, discoloration, and increased plaque retention. Minimally invasive technologies have recently been introduced to improve adhesive removal while limiting damage to the outer enamel layer, but comparative clinical evidence remains limited. This aim of this case-control study was to compare the effectiveness and the safety of two different minimally invasive clean-up systems: two-step ultrasonic inserts (Combi Touch, Mectron) and a one-step polishing bur (One Gloss®, Shofu).
A total of 142 patients presenting residual orthodontic adhesive after debonding were included. They were randomly allocated to: (1) Case group (n = 71): two-step ultrasonic system (Combi Touch, Mectron) equipped with 30-µm diamond-coated and PEEK-coated inserts; (2) Control group (n= 71): one-step tungsten carbide/abrasive polisher (One Gloss®, Shofu). For each patient the following clinical indices were recorded at baseline (T0) and 30-day follow-up (T1): Plaque Control Record (PCR), Bleeding on Probing (BoP), Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI), International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS-II), and dentinal sensitivity (Schiff Air Index). Orthodontic treatment modality (clear aligners vs fixed appliances) was documented as a covariate and tested for potential interactions with clinical outcomes.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case group | Patients underwent orthodontic clean-up with a two-step ultrasonic system (Combi Touch, Mectron) equipped with 30-µm diamond-coated and PEEK-coated inserts |
| |
| Control group | Patients underwent orthodontic clean-up with a one-step tungsten carbide/abrasive polisher (One Gloss®, Shofu) |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two-step ultrasonic protocol | Device | Diamond- and PEEK-coated inserts |
| |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Plaque Control Record (PCR) | The PCR is scored as the percentage of tooth surfaces with visible plaque (0-100%). Higher scores indicate worse oral hygiene. | Baseline, after 30 days |
| Bleeding on Probing (BoP) | BoP is expressed as the percentage of bleeding sites (0-100%). Higher scores indicate worse gingival health. | Baseline, after 30 days |
| Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) | The ARI is scored 0-3, where 0 = no adhesive left on tooth surface and 3 = all adhesive remaining. Higher scores indicate more adhesive remaining on the enamel. | Baseline, after 30 days |
| International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS-II) | The ICDAS-II is scored from 0 to 6, where 0 = sound tooth surface and 6 = extensive cavitated lesion. Higher scores indicate worse caries status. | Baseline, after 30 days |
| Schiff Air Index | The Schiff Air Index scored from 0 to 3, where 0 = no response to air stimulus and 3 = strong painful response. Higher scores indicate greater dentinal hypersensitivity. | Baseline, after 30 days |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Orthodontic treatment modality | Orthodontic treatment modality was recorded as a categorical variable at baseline (T0), distinguishing between the use of clear aligners and fixed appliances. This variable does not follow a numerical scale; instead, it consists of two categories. No minimum or maximum values apply, and higher values do not correspond to better or worse outcomes. | Baseline |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The study population consisted of 142 consecutive patients requiring adhesive removal following orthodontic debonding. Participants were recruited at the Oral Hygiene and Prevention Center of the Department of Dentistry, San Raffaele Hospital, and at the Smart Dental Clinics (San Donato Group), Milan, Italy, between April 2025 and September 2025.
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dental Clinic, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital | Milan | Italy | 20132 | Italy |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20889035 | Background | Pont HB, Ozcan M, Bagis B, Ren Y. Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Oct;138(4):387.e1-387.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.01.028. | |
| 32560482 | Background | D'Amario M, Bernardi S, Di Lauro D, Marzo G, Macchiarelli G, Capogreco M. Debonding and Clean-Up in Orthodontics: Evaluation of Different Techniques and Micro-Morphological Aspects of the Enamel Surface. Dent J (Basel). 2020 Jun 17;8(2):58. doi: 10.3390/dj8020058. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| One-step clean-up protocol |
| Device |
One-step tungsten carbide/abrasive polisher |
|
| 37443027 | Background | Thawaba AA, Albelasy NF, Elsherbini AM, Hafez AM. Evaluation of enamel roughness after orthodontic debonding and clean-up procedures using zirconia, tungsten carbide, and white stone burs: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2023 Jul 13;23(1):478. doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03194-6. |
| 7785800 | Background | Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod. 1995;65(2):103-10. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1995)0652.0.CO;2. |