https://www.selleckchem.com/products/GDC-0449.html Thereafter, the samples were subjected to the pH cycling for consecutive 21 days, and SMH was recorded. The SMH was evaluated using a Vickers microhardness tester. Statistical analysis was done using a Tukey test for each group based on the stage of treatment and one-way ANOVA for comparison among different groups. BAG Novamin showed SMH recovery at 96.75% followed by f-TCP at 95.83%, nHAp at 90.88%, and GSE at 48.71%. Statistically significant differences were observed between the first three groups and the rest of the groups after RML stage. BAG Novamin, f-TCP, and nHAp showed considerable RML followed to a lesser extent by GSE. BAG Novamin, f-TCP, and nHAp showed considerable RML followed to a lesser extent by GSE. Nano restorative composites have been successfully used in restorative dentistry and have high strength and wear resistance. Conventional orthodontic adhesives also possess optimal strength to withstand occlusal forces. This study was done to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic bracket after bonding with nanorestorative composite and orthodontic adhesives. This experimental study used sixty extracted teeth (divided into two groups). In Group A ( = 30), the brackets were bonded with Filtek Z350 (3M/Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA), a nano ceramic restorative composite, and in Group B ( = 30), the brackets were bonded with Transbond XT (3M/Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA), a conventional orthodontic adhesive. The SBS of the orthodontic brackets was measured using a universal testing machine. The modified 0-5-scale adhesive remnant index (ARI) was used to assess the amount of adhesive on enamel and bracket surfaces. The surface topography was observed to evaluate enamel damage. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) SBS of 11.07 (1.96) Mega Pascal (MPa) was observed with Filtek Z350, whereas the group bonded with Transbond XT showed the mean (SD) SBS of 12.18 (1.69) MPa. The results showe