243 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20685517)
1. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets.
Chen SS; Greenlee GM; Kim JE; Smith CL; Huang GJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Jun; 137(6):726.e1-726.e18; discussion 726-7. PubMed ID: 20685517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Is there any difference between conventional, passive and active self-ligating brackets? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Maizeray R; Wagner D; Lefebvre F; Lévy-Bénichou H; Bolender Y
Int Orthod; 2021 Dec; 19(4):523-538. PubMed ID: 34629309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparative assessment of alignment efficiency and space closure of active and passive self-ligating vs conventional appliances in adolescents: a single-center randomized controlled trial.
Songra G; Clover M; Atack NE; Ewings P; Sherriff M; Sandy JR; Ireland AJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 May; 145(5):569-78. PubMed ID: 24785921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Root resorption during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Yi J; Li M; Li Y; Li X; Zhao Z
BMC Oral Health; 2016 Nov; 16(1):125. PubMed ID: 27871255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Transversal changes, space closure, and efficiency of conventional and self-ligating appliances : A quantitative systematic review.
Yang X; Xue C; He Y; Zhao M; Luo M; Wang P; Bai D
J Orofac Orthop; 2018 Jan; 79(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 29101414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets: A systematic review.
Dehbi H; Azaroual MF; Zaoui F; Halimi A; Benyahia H
Int Orthod; 2017 Sep; 15(3):297-311. PubMed ID: 28778722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Microbial colonisation associated with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a systematic review.
Parmar NP; Thompson GL; Atack NE; Ireland AJ; Sherriff M; Haworth JA
J Orthod; 2022 Jun; 49(2):151-162. PubMed ID: 34839734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial.
Scott P; DiBiase AT; Sherriff M; Cobourne MT
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Oct; 134(4):470.e1-8. PubMed ID: 18929262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics: Do they deliver what they claim?
Miles PG
Aust Dent J; 2009 Mar; 54(1):9-11. PubMed ID: 19228126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets.
Hamilton R; Goonewardene MS; Murray K
Aust Orthod J; 2008 Nov; 24(2):102-9. PubMed ID: 19113074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Time efficiency of self-ligating vs conventional brackets in orthodontics: effect of appliances and ligating systems.
Paduano S; Cioffi I; Iodice G; Rapuano A; Silva R
Prog Orthod; 2008; 9(2):74-80. PubMed ID: 19350061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A "typodont" study of rate of orthodontic space closure: self-ligating systems vs. conventional systems.
Saporito I; Butti AC; Salvato A; Biagi R
Minerva Stomatol; 2011; 60(11-12):555-65. PubMed ID: 22210459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of maxillary arch dimensional and inclination changes with self-ligating and conventional brackets using broad archwires.
Atik E; Akarsu-Guven B; Kocadereli I; Ciger S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Jun; 149(6):830-7. PubMed ID: 27241993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. A comparative assessment of the forces and moments generated at the maxillary incisors between conventional and self-ligating brackets using a reverse curve of Spee NiTi archwire.
Sifakakis I; Pandis N; Makou M; Eliades T; Bourauel C
Aust Orthod J; 2010 Nov; 26(2):127-33. PubMed ID: 21175021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material.
Turnbull NR; Birnie DJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Mar; 131(3):395-9. PubMed ID: 17346597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment.
Ong E; McCallum H; Griffin MP; Ho C
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Aug; 138(2):138.e1-7; discussion 138-9. PubMed ID: 20691348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Prevalence and type of pain during conventional and self-ligating orthodontic treatment.
Tecco S; D'Attilio M; Tetè S; Festa F
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Aug; 31(4):380-4. PubMed ID: 19465738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects.
Pandis N; Polychronopoulou A; Eliades T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Aug; 132(2):208-15. PubMed ID: 17693371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
