204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22210459)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Self-ligating vs conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics.
Miles PG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Aug; 132(2):223-5. PubMed ID: 17693373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparative evaluation of frictional forces in active and passive self-ligating brackets with various archwire alloys.
Krishnan M; Kalathil S; Abraham KM
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Nov; 136(5):675-82. PubMed ID: 19892284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Does the bracket-ligature combination affect the amount of orthodontic space closure over three months? A randomized controlled trial.
Wong H; Collins J; Tinsley D; Sandler J; Benson P
J Orthod; 2013 Jun; 40(2):155-62. PubMed ID: 23794696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Frictional evaluations of dental typodont models using four self-ligating designs and a conventional design.
Henao SP; Kusy RP
Angle Orthod; 2005 Jan; 75(1):75-85. PubMed ID: 15747819
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental typodonts.
Henao SP; Kusy RP
Angle Orthod; 2004 Apr; 74(2):202-11. PubMed ID: 15132446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of frictional forces during dental alignment: an experimental model with 3 nonleveled brackets.
Matarese G; Nucera R; Militi A; Mazza M; Portelli M; Festa F; Cordasco G
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 May; 133(5):708-15. PubMed ID: 18456144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10 bracket model.
Tecco S; Festa F; Caputi S; Traini T; Di Iorio D; D'Attilio M
Angle Orthod; 2005 Nov; 75(6):1041-5. PubMed ID: 16448253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. An in vitro investigation of the influence of self-ligating brackets, low friction ligatures, and archwire on frictional resistance.
Tecco S; Di Iorio D; Cordasco G; Verrocchi I; Festa F
Eur J Orthod; 2007 Aug; 29(4):390-7. PubMed ID: 17702800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Measurement of friction forces between stainless steel wires and "reduced-friction" self-ligating brackets.
Reznikov N; Har-Zion G; Barkana I; Abed Y; Redlich M
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Sep; 138(3):330-8. PubMed ID: 20816303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. In vitro frictional forces generated by three different ligation methods.
Gandini P; Orsi L; Bertoncini C; Massironi S; Franchi L
Angle Orthod; 2008 Sep; 78(5):917-21. PubMed ID: 18298218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Static frictional force and surface roughness of various bracket and wire combinations.
Doshi UH; Bhad-Patil WA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Jan; 139(1):74-9. PubMed ID: 21195280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. In vitro evaluation of the frictional forces between brackets and archwire with three passive self-ligating brackets.
Cordasco G; Farronato G; Festa F; Nucera R; Parazzoli E; Grossi GB
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Dec; 31(6):643-6. PubMed ID: 19797412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Numeric modeling of torque capabilities of self-ligating and conventional brackets.
Huang Y; Keilig L; Rahimi A; Reimann S; Eliades T; Jäger A; Bourauel C
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Nov; 136(5):638-43. PubMed ID: 19892278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mechanical properties of coated superelastic archwires in conventional and self-ligating orthodontic brackets.
Elayyan F; Silikas N; Bearn D
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Feb; 137(2):213-7. PubMed ID: 20152677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. A comparison of space closure rates between preactivated nickel-titanium and titanium-molybdenum alloy T-loops: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Keng FY; Quick AN; Swain MV; Herbison P
Eur J Orthod; 2012 Feb; 34(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 21415288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
