فهرست نشریات علمی دسترسی آزاد ایران

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the surface roughness of enamel after debonding orthodontic brackets, comparing two different types of fluorescent and non-fluorescent composites under UV light.Methods: In this study, 24 intact maxillary first or second premolars were randomly numbered from one to 24. The surface roughness of the samples was measured using a profilometer before bonding, and then the samples were divided into two groups (N = 12) based on the composite type. The enamel surfaces were then etched with 35% phosphoric acid. In the experimental group, brackets were bonded to the teeth using a fluorescent GC Ortho Connect orthodontic composite. In the control group, the non-fluorescent Transbond XT bonding system was used for bonding. After 24 hours, samples were debonded under UV light using a tungsten carbide bur. Finally, the roughness of the enamel surface was evaluated using a profilometer. The time required for composite removal was recorded for each sample. Statistical analysis was performed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, independent t-tests, and Fisher's exact tests. The significance level was set at P < 0.05.Results: In the fluorescent group (GC), the surface roughness parameters Ra, Rq, and Rz showed significant differences before and after composite removal, with an increase observed post-treatment. In the non-fluorescent group (Transbond XT), only the Rz parameter showed a significant difference, increasing after the treatment. The debonding of the fluorescent GC composite group required a significantly longer time. Conclusion: The removal of fluorescent composites using UV light did not necessarily reduce enamel surface roughness compared with non-fluorescent composites. Moreover, the use of fluorescent composites does not always reduce working time.