Comparison of Two Orthodontic Clean-Up Protocols

NCT ID: NCT07304310

Last Updated: 2025-12-26

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

142 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2025-04-08

Study Completion Date

2025-09-01

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

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.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Orthodontic Appliance Debonding Case-control Study

Keywords

Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.

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

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

CASE_CONTROL

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

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

Two-step ultrasonic protocol

Intervention Type DEVICE

Diamond- and PEEK-coated inserts

Control group

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

One-step clean-up protocol

Intervention Type DEVICE

One-step tungsten carbide/abrasive polisher

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Two-step ultrasonic protocol

Diamond- and PEEK-coated inserts

Intervention Type DEVICE

One-step clean-up protocol

One-step tungsten carbide/abrasive polisher

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

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

* Patients treated with removable orthodontic appliances
* Patients whose debonding exceeded 24 months
* ICDAS-II score \> 2
Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

IRCCS San Raffaele

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Simona Tecco

Associate Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Dental Clinic, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital

Milan, Italy, Italy

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Italy

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

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.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 20889035 (View on PubMed)

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.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 32560482 (View on PubMed)

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.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 37443027 (View on PubMed)

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.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 7785800 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

OCUs

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id