Objectives: To compare a fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) with a conventional light source (CLS) for removing composite during debonding of brackets with respect to time needed, composite remnants, and tooth substance loss. Materials and Methods: Twelve maxillary models with 10 bovine teeth each were digitally surface-scanned and metal brackets were bonded on each tooth with Opal Seal and Opal Bond. Two operators: an experienced orthodontist (A) and an undergraduate student (B) received six models each and were asked to remove the composite remnants with a tungsten carbide bur and Sof-Lex discs by both a conventional light source (CLS group, n = 3), and fluorescent inducing light (FIT group, n = 3). The time taken was recorded, and a postoperative scan was digitally superimposed on the preoperative scan to quantify number of teeth with composite remnants and volume and thickness of enamel loss and composite remnants. Chi-square test and independent t-tests were performed to compare methods with a significance level of 5%. Results: Compared to CLS, both operators needed significantly less time when using the FIT method and degree of enamel loss, height, and volume of composite remnants and total remaining composite remnants were significantly reduced. By FIT, the volume of enamel loss was significantly reduced for operator A only. Operator B removed the same enamel volume with either method. Conclusions: Cleanup after orthodontic debonding with the FIT was superior regarding time needed and removal of composite remnants. Total enamel loss reduction was operator-dependent.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of fluorescence inducing light to aid the clean-up of tooth surfaces after bracket removal when using buccal or lingual orthodontic appliances. Two full sets of dental arches using extracted human teeth were assembled, with 14 teeth per arch. All teeth were bonded on their buccal and lingual surfaces. After debonding, a single blinded operator performed the tooth surface clean-up, as commonly performed in clinical practice; without the use of fluorescent light (non-FIT) and with two methods using fluorescent light to identify composite remnants on the tooth surfaces (FIT; OPAL and BRACE). Tooth surfaces were scanned before bonding and after clean-up, and the two scans were superimposed using the best-fit method. The results showed that the debonding method, type of tooth and type of tooth surface had a significant effect on the presence of composite remnants, enamel defects, and on debonding time. Contrary to the non-FIT method, there were no composite remnants after clean-up with the use of fluorescence inducing light. Clean-up time was significantly reduced on the buccal surfaces when using the FIT methods. On the lingual surfaces, the FIT methods resulted in larger enamel defects.