## 4 Discussion  
Enamel damage often manifests as cracks, which have the potential to extend further during the debonding process. Such cracks pose a risk to the structural integrity of the enamel and may result in aesthetic concerns for patients [22]. The current study examined the influence of thermocycling, bonding agent, and curing techniques on enamel surfaces after debonding metal brackets. Our investigation revealed that crack incidence, length, and direction did not differ significantly across different groups. Although thermocycling did not significantly impact ARI and bracket failure modes, significant variations in them among different curing technique groups were observed, highlighting the importance of adhesive and protocol selection in orthodontic treatment. The current study did not find significant differences in crack incidence, length, and direction after the debonding of metal brackets across various experimental groups, regardless of thermocycling conditions, curing techniques (pre-curing or co-curing), and bonding agents (fifth generation or seventh generation). These results suggest that these factors do not significantly impact crack formation during bracket debonding. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [11] revealed an insignificant difference in bond strength after thermocycling. However, contrary to our findings, a study by [PERSON] et al. [23] reported a significant increase in enamel microcracks after bracket debonding following thermocycling. They suggested that thermal stresses may weaken the enamel structure, predisposing it to crack formation during bracket debonding. Another research by [PERSON] et al. [24] examined the influence of different curing techniques on bond reliability. They noted that the co-curing method led to diminished bond reliability compared to the conventional pre-curing method. However, in the same line as our results, [PERSON] et al. [25] found that surface treatment with either laser-etching or acid-etching exhibited insignificant differences in the frequency or length of enamel cracks after bracket debonding. Studies comparing the performance of different bonding agents have yielded mixed results regarding their impact on enamel integrity. When microleakage was examined after using fifth generation bonding agents compared with the seventh generation bonding agents, seventh-generation agents showed significantly less leakage than the other group [26]. It is important to consider the differences in experimental design, sample size, and methodology. The comparison of ARI scores between thermocycling and non-thermocycling conditions across different curing technique groups revealed interesting findings. Notably, all cases in group 9, group 10, and group 7, as well as 75% of cases in group 8 (all bonded with a seventh generation bonding agent), exhibited an ARI score of zero, regardless of thermocycling. While variations were observed in the presence of ARI (1), particularly in group 3, where all cases showed ARI (1) in non-thermocycling conditions, overall comparisons did not show significant differences between the two conditions. Additionally, no significant differences were noted in the presence of ARI (2) and ARI (3) across different curing techniques or between thermocycling and non-thermocycling conditions. These findings suggest that thermocycling did not significantly influence the adhesive remnantsremaining on the tooth surface after bracket removal across the various curing technique groups. These findings provide valuable insights into the effects of thermocycling testing with different orthodontic bonding agents and curing techniques on adhesive remnants after metal orthodontic brackets debonding. The observation that all cases in certain groups, particularly those bonded with a seventh generation adhesive (groups 7, 9, and 10), exhibited an ARI score of zero regardless of thermocycling indicates a consistent pattern of adhesive remnant removal.