CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07304310Updated Dec 26, 2025

Comparison of Two Orthodontic Clean-Up Protocols

An observational study in Orthodontic Appliance, Debonding and Case-control Study, sponsored by IRCCS San Raffaele. Completed at 1 site in Italy. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-12-26.

Sponsored by IRCCS San Raffaele · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
142
Sex
All
01

Study summary

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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Orthodontic Appliance
  • Debonding
  • Case-control Study

Keywords

  • orthodontic clean-up
  • orthodontic debonding
  • enamel preservation
  • minimally invasive dentistry
  • case-control study
03

In context

Lead sponsor

IRCCS San Raffaele is the lead sponsor of 443 studies on the registry; 234 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

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.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients undergone either fixed vestibular orthodontic treatment or clear aligner therapy
  • Debonding procedure must not have occurred more than 24 months prior to evaluation
  • ICDAS-II index ≤ 2

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients treated with removable orthodontic appliances
  • Patients whose debonding exceeded 24 months
  • ICDAS-II score > 2
05

Study design

Observational model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
142 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • 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

    Device: Two-step ultrasonic protocol

  • Control group

    Patients underwent orthodontic clean-up with a one-step tungsten carbide/abrasive polisher (One Gloss®, Shofu)

    Device: One-step clean-up protocol

Interventions

  • DeviceTwo-step ultrasonic protocol

    Diamond- and PEEK-coated inserts

  • DeviceOne-step clean-up protocol

    One-step tungsten carbide/abrasive polisher

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. 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.

    Time frame: Baseline, after 30 days

  2. Bleeding on Probing (BoP)

    BoP is expressed as the percentage of bleeding sites (0-100%). Higher scores indicate worse gingival health.

    Time frame: Baseline, after 30 days

  3. 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.

    Time frame: Baseline, after 30 days

  4. 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.

    Time frame: Baseline, after 30 days

  5. 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.

    Time frame: Baseline, after 30 days

Secondary outcomes

  1. 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.

    Time frame: Baseline

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Dental Clinic, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital
    Milan, Italy 20132, Italy
08

References and documents

Publications

  • 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. PubMed 20889035 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 32560482 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 37443027 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 7785800 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 26, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07304310
Lead sponsor
IRCCS San Raffaele
Responsible party
Simona Tecco (Associate Professor, IRCCS San Raffaele) — Principal investigator
First posted
Dec 26, 2025
Start date
Apr 8, 2025
Primary completion
Sep 1, 2025
Completion
Sep 1, 2025
Last update
Dec 26, 2025

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion