## 3 Results  
The means and standard deviation (SD) values for the area (mm\({}^{2}\)) and volume (mm\({}^{3}\)) of remaining cement after lingual and buccal multibracket appliance debonding are displayed in Table 1 and Figure 5.  
The paired \(t\) test statistical analysis showed statistically significant differences (\(p\) < 0.001) between the area of remaining cement after lingual (7.07 \(\pm\) 4.85 mm\({}^{2}\)) and buccal (21.99 \(\pm\) 4.18 mm\({}^{2}\)) multibracket appliance debonding (Figure 5A). In addition, the paired \(t\) test statistical analysis showed statistically significant differences (\(p\) = 0.002) between the volume of remaining cement after lingual (0.87 \(\pm\) 1.34 mm\({}^{3}\)) and buccal (3.48 \(\pm\) 0.96 mm\({}^{3}\)) multibracket appliance debonding (Figure 5B).  
The means and SD values for the area (mm\({}^{2}\)) and volume (mm\({}^{3}\)) of remaining cement after cement polishing of the lingual and buccal multibracket appliance therapies are displayed in Table 2 and Figure 6.  
The paired \(t\) test statistical analysis showed statistically significant differences (\(p\) = 0.001) between the area of remaining cement after cement polishing of the lingual (4.48 \(\pm\) 3.08 mm\({}^{2}\)) and buccal (12.22 \(\pm\) 5.98 mm\({}^{2}\)) multibracket appliance therapies (Figure 6A). In addition, the paired \(t\) test statistical analysis showed statistically significant differences (\(p\) = 0.004) between the volume of remaining cement after cement polishing of the lingual (0.13 \(\pm\) 0.15 mm\({}^{3}\)) and buccal (0.70 \(\pm\) 0.56 mm\({}^{3}\)) multibracket appliance therapies (Figure 6B).  
The means and SD values for the area (mm\({}^{2}\)) and volume (mm\({}^{3}\)) of enamel removed after cement polishing of the lingual and buccal multibracket appliance therapies are displayed in Table 3 and Figure 7.  
The paired \(t\) test statistical analysis did not show statistically significant differences (\(p\) = 0.709) between the area of enamel removed after cement polishing of the lingual (6.13 \(\pm\) 2.97 mm\({}^{2}\)) and buccal (6.71 \(\pm\) 3.81 mm\({}^{2}\)) multibracket appliance therapies (Figure 7A). In addition, the paired \(t\) test statistical analysis did not show statistically significant differences (\(p\) = 0.307) between the volume of enamel removed after cement polishing of the lingual (0.49 \(\pm\) 0.42 mm\({}^{3}\)) and buccal (0.33 \(\pm\) 0.26 mm\({}^{3}\)) multibracket appliance therapies (Figure 7B).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Study Group** & **Measure** & \(n\) & **Mean** & **SD** & **Median** & **Range** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Lingual} & Area & 10 & 4.48 & 3.08 & 4.11 & 9.63 \\  & Volume & 10 & 0.13 & 0.15 & 0.07 & 0.43 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Buccal} & Area & 10 & 12.22 & 5.98 & 11.52 & 15.07 \\  & Volume & 10 & 0.70 & 0.56 & 0.46 & 1.37 \\ \hline \end{tabular} SD: Standard deviation.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of the area (mm\({}^{2}\)) and volume (mm\({}^{3}\)) of remaining cement after cement polishing of the lingual and buccal multibracket appliance therapies.  
Figure 6: Boxplot of the area (**A**) and volume (**B**) of remaining cement after cement polishing of the lingual and buccal multibracket appliance therapies. The horizontal line in each box represents the respective median value of the study groups. Blue represents lingual multibracket appliance and red represents buccal multibrackets appliance.