168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17346599)
1. Friction does not increase anchorage loading.
Southard TE; Marshall SD; Grosland NM
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Mar; 131(3):412-4. PubMed ID: 17346599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Numeric simulations of en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics.
Kojima Y; Fukui H
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Dec; 138(6):702.e1-6; discussion 702-4. PubMed ID: 21130318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Numerical simulation of canine retraction by sliding mechanics.
Kojima Y; Fukui H
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 May; 127(5):542-51. PubMed ID: 15877034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Optimal loading conditions for controlled movement of anterior teeth in sliding mechanics.
Tominaga JY; Tanaka M; Koga Y; Gonzales C; Kobayashi M; Yoshida N
Angle Orthod; 2009 Nov; 79(6):1102-7. PubMed ID: 19852600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effective en-masse retraction design with orthodontic mini-implant anchorage: a finite element analysis.
Sung SJ; Jang GW; Chun YS; Moon YS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 May; 137(5):648-57. PubMed ID: 20451784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Finite element analysis of the effect of force directions on tooth movement in extraction space closure with miniscrew sliding mechanics.
Kojima Y; Kawamura J; Fukui H
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Oct; 142(4):501-8. PubMed ID: 22999674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Friction and loading.
Burrow SJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Dec; 132(6):725-6. PubMed ID: 18068582
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and archwires in the buccal segments.
Taylor NG; Ison K
Angle Orthod; 1996; 66(3):215-22. PubMed ID: 8805917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effects of friction and flexural rigidity of the archwire on canine movement in sliding mechanics: a numerical simulation with a 3-dimensional finite element method.
Kojima Y; Fukui H; Miyajima K
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Sep; 130(3):275.e1-10. PubMed ID: 16979481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of force loss due to friction of different wire sizes and materials in conventional and new self-ligating orthodontic brackets during simulated canine retraction.
El-Bialy T; Alobeid A; Dirk C; Jäger A; Keilig L; Bourauel C
J Orofac Orthop; 2019 Mar; 80(2):68-78. PubMed ID: 30758513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Modified sliding mechanics in extraction cases with a bidimensional approach.
Giancotti A; Greco M
Prog Orthod; 2010; 11(2):157-65. PubMed ID: 20974453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial.
da Costa Monini A; Júnior LGG; Vianna AP; Martins RP
Clin Oral Investig; 2017 May; 21(4):1047-1053. PubMed ID: 27246754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparison between friction and frictionless mechanics with a new typodont simulation system.
Rhee JN; Chun YS; Row J
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Mar; 119(3):292-9. PubMed ID: 11244423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Study of force loss due to friction comparing two ceramic brackets during sliding tooth movement.
AlSubaie M; Talic N; Khawatmi S; Alobeid A; Bourauel C; El-Bialy T
J Orofac Orthop; 2016 Sep; 77(5):334-40. PubMed ID: 27384715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets.
Burrow SJ
Angle Orthod; 2010 Jul; 80(4):438-45. PubMed ID: 20482346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Biomechanical effects of corticotomy approaches on dentoalveolar structures during canine retraction: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis.
Yang C; Wang C; Deng F; Fan Y
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Sep; 148(3):457-65. PubMed ID: 26321344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of anchorage loss between conventional and self-ligating brackets during canine retraction - A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Malik DES; Fida M; Afzal E; Irfan S
Int Orthod; 2020 Mar; 18(1):41-53. PubMed ID: 31866192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparative evaluation of different compensating curves in the lingual and labial techniques using 3D FEM.
Sung SJ; Baik HS; Moon YS; Yu HS; Cho YS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Apr; 123(4):441-50. PubMed ID: 12695772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Friction and anchorage loading revisited.
Dholakia KD
Orthodontics (Chic.); 2012; 13(1):200-9. PubMed ID: 22567633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Duration and anchorage management of canine retraction with bodily versus tipping mechanics.
Shpack N; Davidovitch M; Sarne O; Panayi N; Vardimon AD
Angle Orthod; 2008 Jan; 78(1):95-100. PubMed ID: 18193953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
