## 4 Discussion  
As recently described in the literature, the operator's experience during the debonding procedure affects the quality of the results [1; 2; 3; 5; 7; 8; 9; 10]. The design of the proposed study also involved inexperienced operators. Each of the postgraduate doctors was instructed in a pre-operative session by experienced operators. This study design was chosen to minimize bias related to high experience of the operators, and also to permit repetitiveness of the test under the same conditions (by having the same experience levels) and compared to experienced professional. Likewise, all procedures were done under the same lighting conditions due to the fact that changing weather and changing lighting can highly affect and compromise the reproducibility of the work. In fact, no direct sunlight was affecting the study, and the UV light was held at a minimum distance of 50 cm in both groups. This allowed the composite to have the same optical reaction during all de-bonding procedures. UV light was used under the same conditions during the DSC procedure to discard UV advantages not related to the fluorescent characteristics of the novel fluorescent composite, as described by [PERSON] et al. [11]. [PERSON] et al. demonstrated that ARI grades are significantly different when testing is carried out with the naked eye and 10-20\(\times\) magnification; but they are similar when using 10\(\times\) magnification and naked-eye evaluation [12]. The evaluation was carried out using grade scale 0 to 2 of the modified ARI. Originally, 4 grades of ARI were described by [PERSON] et al., or alternatively modified 5 grades by [PERSON] et al. [13; 14]. In our study, the ARI grades were modified specifically for the purpose of macroscopic evaluationTherefore, the use of magnifying glasses can be fundamental in the phase of bracket placement and cleaning of excess composite during bonding. However, the use of Adhesive RemnantIndex remains a controversial topic [1]. Other authors evaluated the assessment of the confidence of ARI score with other methods such as photography, use of the naked eye, and 20\(\times\) magnifications, resulting in no significant differences [15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23]. The simplified grades of ARI provided the teeth evaluation with a simplified procedure and less risk of bias [8; 12; 13; 14]. Recently, new de-bonding techniques were developed, or existing methods were improved, for example, [PERSON] et al. proposed the use of a novel bioactive glass via air abrasion [22; 24; 25]. Currently, no technique has proven to be capable of complete and efficient removal of residual adhesives without inducing even a minor amount of enamel damage [5]. The new methodology using UV light and UV fluorescent composite might improve the safety and decrease the iatrogenic damage of the enamel and dentine during the clean-up processes after de-bonding in the future. It might result in an improvement in the health for all patients undergoing orthodontic treatment due to the decrease of macroscopic composite residuals, which could decrease plaque retention, even though it is not a resolutive procedure. The restoration of patient's pre-treatment dental health is a priority to every orthodontic procedure, and more efforts should be made to help the clinician as well as to develop effective protocols. We can also speculate that recent advancements and popularity in clear aligners could benefit from the same technology during attachment removals [26]. The duration of the procedure is also important during this kind of procedure. The new methodology seems to highly decrease the time required to effectively remove the composite, probably because the composite remnant's magnitude and position can be recognized easily and faster due to their strong fluorescent proprieties and bright color. The main limitation of the study is that the results produced should be tested on a larger sample, and would be even better if carried out in vivo.