## 4 Discussion
This finding aligns with previous studies demonstrating the effectiveness of seventh generation bonding agents in achieving complete adhesive removal upon bracket debonding [26; 27]. The variations observed in the presence of ARI (1), particularly in group 3, where all cases showed ARI (1) in non-thermocycling conditions, suggest potential differences in adhesive bonding and debonding behavior under different environmental conditions. Previous research has highlighted the impact of environmental factors, such as temperature fluctuations, on adhesive performance and durability [8; 28]. These findings emphasize the importance of considering environmental conditions, such as thermocycling, when evaluating adhesive remnants and bonding efficacy. The comparison of bond failure and success rate after metal bracket debonding revealed significant differences among different curing technique groups. Thermocycling groups 5 and 6 exhibited mixed outcomes in 75% of cases, while groups 9 and 10 showed no instances of mixed outcomes. Non-thermocycling groups 3 (100%) and 4 (75%) had mixed outcomes, with group 4 showing bracket/adhesive issues in 25% of cases. Groups 5 and 6 showed similar success rates (25%), while groups 9 and 10 had significantly higher success rates (100%). Non-thermocycling groups 3 and 4 exhibited showed mixed outcomes in 10% and 75% of cases, respectively. On the other hand, group 7 and 8 had significantly higher success rates. Overall, thermocycling did not significantly influence bracket failure modes. The observed differences in bond failure and success rates among curing technique groups underscore the impact of various factors on orthodontic treatment outcomes. The significant variation in outcomes suggests that the choice of adhesive and curing technique plays a crucial role in bond integrity. The influence of adhesive properties and application methods on bond strength and durability was evident [29]. Additionally, research has highlighted the importance of considering environmental factors such as thermocycling, which can simulate oral conditions and affect bond performance over time [10; 11]. These findings emphasize the need for careful consideration of adhesive systems and curing protocols to ensure optimal bond outcomes and minimize the risk of bracket failure during orthodontic treatment. In this study, following debonding, we examined the enamel surface of each tooth and the brackets using a stereomicroscope. [PERSON] et al. demonstrated the potential of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for non-invasive visualization of near-surface alterations in complex tissues, suggesting its utility for enhancing orthodontic procedures to restore the tooth surface to its pre-treatment condition by analyzing the enamel structure [30]. It has been reported that using Er,Cr:YSGG laser (Waterlase MD, Biolase technology, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) (4 W/20 Hz) during debonding of ceramic brackets helps protect enamel topography compared to conventional manual methods. Proper adjustment of laser settings is essential to prevent structural alteration beneath the bracket [31]. Another study investigated changes in Enamel Microcracks (EMCs) following metal bracket removal, noting new EMC formation post-debonding. These findings underscored the need for further examination of EMCs to understand tooth structure changes during orthodontic treatment [32]. In this study, metal brackets were used, which are known for lower enamel fracture risk compared to ceramic brackets [5]. We employed stainless steel angled bracket remover orthodontic dental pliers for debonding, a method that [PERSON] et al. concluded reduces the risk of enamel cracks compared to chiseling [33]. The method employed for investigation, along with the various parameters assessed, including in-depth examination of orthodontic bracket failure post-debonding and the analysis of ARI scores, all contribute to this study's strengths.