These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1626532)

  • 21. Reduction of biofilm on orthodontic brackets with the use of a polytetrafluoroethylene coating.
    Demling A; Elter C; Heidenblut T; Bach FW; Hahn A; Schwestka-Polly R; Stiesch M; Heuer W
    Eur J Orthod; 2010 Aug; 32(4):414-8. PubMed ID: 20139131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The effect of variation in mesh-base design on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.
    Bishara SE; Soliman MM; Oonsombat C; Laffoon JF; Ajlouni R
    Angle Orthod; 2004 Jun; 74(3):400-4. PubMed ID: 15264654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A modified direct technique versus conventional direct placement of brackets: in vitro bond strength comparison.
    McAlarney ME; Brenn P
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1993 Dec; 104(6):575-83. PubMed ID: 8249933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study.
    Shammaa I; Ngan P; Kim H; Kao E; Gladwin M; Gunel E; Brown C
    Angle Orthod; 1999 Oct; 69(5):463-9. PubMed ID: 10515145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Evaluation of the shear bond strength of different ceramic bracket base designs.
    Olsen ME; Bishara SE; Jakobsen JR
    Angle Orthod; 1997; 67(3):179-82. PubMed ID: 9188961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Influence of Preadjusted Bracket Shape and Positioning Reference on Angulation of Upper Central Incisor.
    Topolski F; de O Accorsi MA; Trevisi HJ; Cuoghi OA; Moresca R
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2016 Oct; 17(10):786-790. PubMed ID: 27794146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Inexpensive Orthodontic Treatment with a Prescription Custom-Base System.
    Pham J; Lee RJ; Weissheimer A; Sameshima GT; Tong H
    J Clin Orthod; 2016 Mar; 50(3):149-58. PubMed ID: 27117734
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study.
    Aboujaoude R; Kmeid R; Gebrael C; Amm E
    Prog Orthod; 2022 Sep; 23(1):31. PubMed ID: 36058991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A comparison of the shear-peel and third-order bond strengths of orthodontic brackets with 2 etch techniques and the role of bracket asymmetry.
    Gibb AJ; Katona TR
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Dec; 130(6):699.e1-7. PubMed ID: 17169729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Forces exerted by conventional and self-ligating brackets during simulated first- and second-order corrections.
    Pandis N; Eliades T; Partowi S; Bourauel C
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 May; 133(5):738-42. PubMed ID: 18456148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comparing bond strengths of brackets on primary teeth with 3 different primers.
    Ozoe-Ishida R; Endo T; Shimooka S
    Pediatr Dent; 2010; 32(2):118-22. PubMed ID: 20483014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with the custom base indirect bonding technique.
    Yagci A; Uysal T; Ulker M; Ramoglu SI
    Eur J Orthod; 2010 Jun; 32(3):259-63. PubMed ID: 19752016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A pilot study for evaluation of bond strength of orthodontic brackets to enamel using a new impact test machine.
    Hendry RE; Gilgrass T; Chung L; MacPherson R; Yang TH; Reuben RL
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2008; 133():103-11. PubMed ID: 18376018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets.
    Pandis N; Polychronopoulou A; Makou M; Eliades T
    Eur J Orthod; 2010 Jun; 32(3):248-53. PubMed ID: 19959610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Microleakage beneath ceramic and metal brackets bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial adhesive system.
    Arhun N; Arman A; Cehreli SB; Arikan S; Karabulut E; Gülşahi K
    Angle Orthod; 2006 Nov; 76(6):1028-34. PubMed ID: 17090167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Parametric stress analysis of bonded "combination-materials" type of orthodontic brackets.
    Lewis G; Manickam S; Smart FM
    Biomed Mater Eng; 1996; 6(1):33-45. PubMed ID: 8727501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A functional rationale for routine maxillary bonded retention.
    Paulson RC
    Angle Orthod; 1992; 62(3):223-6. PubMed ID: 1416243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of bracket bonding between two CAD/CAM guided bonding devices: GBD-U vs GBD-B.
    Wang P; Li W; Li B; Han X; Bai D; Xue C
    J Dent; 2023 Apr; 131():104456. PubMed ID: 36849067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Comparison of the accuracy of virtual and direct bonding of orthodontic accessories.
    Oliveira NS; Gribel BF; Neves LS; Lages EMB; Macari S; Pretti H
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2019 Sep; 24(4):46-53. PubMed ID: 31508706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques.
    Aguirre MJ; King GJ; Waldron JM
    Am J Orthod; 1982 Oct; 82(4):269-76. PubMed ID: 6760721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.