247 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25548144)
1. Debonding and adhesive remnant cleanup: an in vitro comparison of bond quality, adhesive remnant cleanup, and orthodontic acceptance of a flash-free product.
Grünheid T; Sudit GN; Larson BE
Eur J Orthod; 2015 Oct; 37(5):497-502. PubMed ID: 25548144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparative assessment of bonding time and 1-year bracket survival using flash-free and conventional adhesives for orthodontic bracket bonding: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial.
Grünheid T; Larson BE
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Nov; 154(5):621-628. PubMed ID: 30384932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of the debonding characteristics of two innovative ceramic bracket designs.
Bishara SE; Olsen ME; VonWald L; Jakobsen JR
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Jul; 116(1):86-92. PubMed ID: 10393585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: an in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy.
Alessandri Bonetti G; Zanarini M; Incerti Parenti S; Lattuca M; Marchionni S; Gatto MR
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Nov; 140(5):696-702. PubMed ID: 22051490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Particulate production during debonding of fixed appliances: Laboratory investigation and randomized clinical trial to assess the effect of using flash-free ceramic brackets.
Vig P; Atack NE; Sandy JR; Sherriff M; Ireland AJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2019 Jun; 155(6):767-778. PubMed ID: 31153497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. A comparative assessment of bracket survival and adhesive removal time using flash-free or conventional adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial.
Grünheid T; Larson BE
Angle Orthod; 2019 Mar; 89(2):299-305. PubMed ID: 30230375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of debonding characteristics of a new collapsible ceramic bracket.
Bishara SE; Olsen ME; Von Wald L
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1997 Nov; 112(5):552-9. PubMed ID: 9387843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Microleakage under metallic and ceramic brackets bonded with orthodontic self-etching primer systems.
Uysal T; Ulker M; Ramoglu SI; Ertas H
Angle Orthod; 2008 Nov; 78(6):1089-94. PubMed ID: 18947278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The effect of different bonding and debonding techniques on debonding ceramic orthodontic brackets.
Sinha PK; Nanda RS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1997 Aug; 112(2):132-7. PubMed ID: 9267223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Does ozone water affect the bond strengths of orthodontic brackets?
Pithon MM; dos Santos RL
Aust Orthod J; 2010 May; 26(1):73-7. PubMed ID: 20575204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effects of Diode Laser Debonding of Ceramic Brackets on Enamel Surface and Pulpal Temperature.
Yassaei S; Soleimanian A; Nik ZE
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2015 Apr; 16(4):270-4. PubMed ID: 26067728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The force levels required to mechanically debond ceramic brackets: an in vitro comparative study.
Arici S; Minors C
Eur J Orthod; 2000 Jun; 22(3):327-34. PubMed ID: 10920565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Enamel around orthodontic brackets coated with flash-free and conventional adhesives.
ElSherifa MT; Shamaa MS; Montasser MA
J Orofac Orthop; 2020 Nov; 81(6):419-426. PubMed ID: 32696069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. An in vitro evaluation of a metal reinforced orthodontic ceramic bracket.
Mundstock KS; Sadowsky PL; Lacefield W; Bae S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Dec; 116(6):635-41. PubMed ID: 10587597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Microleakage beneath brackets bonded with flowable materials: effect of thermocycling.
Vicente A; Ortiz AJ; Bravo LA
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Aug; 31(4):390-6. PubMed ID: 19336628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Shear bond strength of brackets bonded to amalgam with different intermediate resins and adhesives.
Germec D; Cakan U; Ozdemir FI; Arun T; Cakan M
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Apr; 31(2):207-12. PubMed ID: 19073953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Debonding characteristics of a polymer mesh base ceramic bracket bonded with two different conditioning methods.
Elekdag-Turk S; Isci D; Ozkalayci N; Turk T
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Feb; 31(1):84-9. PubMed ID: 19164413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Shear/peel bond strength of repositioned ceramic brackets.
Gaffey PG; Major PW; Glover K; Grace M; Koehler JR
Angle Orthod; 1995; 65(5):351-7. PubMed ID: 8526294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding: A quantitative analysis in vitro.
Suliman SN; Trojan TM; Tantbirojn D; Versluis A
Angle Orthod; 2015 Jul; 85(4):651-6. PubMed ID: 25264580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
