## 3 Results
In comparing crack length between thermocycling and non-thermocycling conditions, the \(p\)-value of 0.791 for crack1 indicates no significant difference in crack length between the two groups. In Table 3, the incidence of vertical crack formation within different groups under thermocycling and non-thermocycling conditions is presented. In the thermocycling groups, group 5: g5_curing technique1 showed vertical cracks in 75% of cases, while group 6: g5_curing technique2 exhibited vertical cracks in 100% of cases. For group 9: g7_curing technique2, vertical cracks were observed in 66.7% of cases, and in group 10: g7_curing technique2, vertical cracks were also observed in 100% of cases. In the non-thermocycling groups, group 3: g5_curing technique1 and group 4: g5_curing technique2 both showed vertical cracks in 100% of cases, while group 7: g7_curing technique1 also exhibited vertical cracks in 100% of cases. These percentages illustrate the variation in vertical crack occurrence across different groups under different conditions. However, statistical analysis (\(p\)-values of 0.809 for thermocycling groups and 0.513 for non-thermocycling groups) suggests no significant difference in the incidence of vertical cracks among the respective groups. Across all thermocycling groups, including group 5: g5_curing technique1, group 6: g5_curing technique2, group 9: g7_curing technique2, and group 10: g7_curing technique2, horizontal cracks were absent in all cases, resulting in 100% absence within each group. Similarly, in the non-thermocycling groups, namely group 3: g5_curing technique1, group 4: g5_curing technique2, and group 7: g7_curing technique1, horizontal cracks were also absent in all cases, resulting in 100% absence within these groups as well. The \(p\)-values of 1.00 for both thermocycling and non-thermocycling groups suggest no significant difference in the incidence of horizontal cracks among the respective groups (Table 3). The provided data in Table 3 outlines the occurrence of oblique crack formations within various groups under thermocycling and non-thermocycling conditions. In the thermocycling groups, for instance, group 5: g5_curing technique1 exhibited a presence of oblique cracks in 25% of cases, while the absence was noted in 75%. In contrast, group 6: g5_curing technique2 and group 10: g7_curing technique2 showed 100% absence of oblique cracks. For non-thermocycling groups, such as group 3: g5_curing technique1 and group 7: g7_curing technique1, oblique cracks were absent in all instances, resulting in 100% absence within these groups. The calculated \(p\)-values of 0.809 and 0.513 for the thermocycling and non-thermocycling groups, respectively, suggest no significant difference in the incidence of oblique cracks among the respective groups. In comparing crack length between thermocycling and non-thermocycling conditions, the \(p\)-values of 0.829 for both the occurrence of vertical and oblique crack formations indicates no significant difference in crack length between the two groups. The analysis of ARI (0) indicates noteworthy differences between thermocycling and non-thermocycling groups (Table 4). In particular, thermocycling groups 5 (g5_ curing technique1) and 6 (g5_ curing technique2) exhibited statistically significant results (\(p\) = 0.029), with 25% of cases in each group showing ARI (0) presence. This suggests that adhesive remnants were present on the tooth surface after bracket debonding in these groups despite thermocycling exposure. Conversely, all cases in thermocycling groups 9 (g7_ curing technique2) and 10 (g7_ curing technique2), as well as non-thermocycling group 7 (g7_ curing technique1), showed no adhesive remnants (0%). Notably, non-thermocycling group 3 (g5_ curing technique1) also demonstrated a significant difference (\(p\) = 0.007), indicating the absence of ARI (0). In contrast, non-thermocycling group 8 (g7_ curing technique2) displayed 75% of cases with ARI (0).