Abstract
Introduction: Digital planning and evolution of technology is allowing dentistry to be more efficient in time than before. In orthodontics the main purpose is to obtain fewer patient visits and to reduce the bonding time. For that, indirect bonding planned with CAD-CAM softwares is used to obtain a shorter treatment period, in general, and less chair-time. This waste of chair-time should also be reduced in other fields of dentistry such as endodontics, surgery, prosthodontics, and aesthetics. Methods: A total of 504 teeth were embedded into epoxy resin models mounted as a dental arch. Customized lingual multibracket appliances were bonded by a current adhesion protocol. After that, they were debonded, the polishing of cement remnants was performed with three different burs and two drills. The polishing time of each group was recorded by an iPhone 14 chronometer. Results: Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were performed with the different study groups. Statistical differences (p < 0.005) between diamond bur and tungsten carbide and white stone burs and turbine were obtained, with the first being the slowest of them. Discussion: Enamel roughness was widely studied in orthodontics polishing protocol as the main variable for protocols establishment. However, in lingual orthodontics, due the difficulty of the access to the enamel surfaces, the protocol is not clear and efficiency should be considered. It was observed that the tungsten carbide bur is the safest bur. It was also recommended that a two-step protocol of polishing by tungsten carbide bur be followed by polishers. Conclusions: A tungsten carbide bur mounted in a turbine was the most efficient protocol for polishing after lingual bracket debonding.