314 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25667040)
1. Impact of orthodontic appliances on the quality of craniofacial anatomical magnetic resonance imaging and real-time speech imaging.
Wylezinska M; Pinkstone M; Hay N; Scott AD; Birch MJ; Miquel ME
Eur J Orthod; 2015 Dec; 37(6):610-7. PubMed ID: 25667040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Magnetic resonance imaging artefacts and fixed orthodontic attachments.
Beau A; Bossard D; Gebeile-Chauty S
Eur J Orthod; 2015 Feb; 37(1):105-10. PubMed ID: 24997025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Influence of dental materials on dental MRI.
Tymofiyeva O; Vaegler S; Rottner K; Boldt J; Hopfgartner AJ; Proff PC; Richter EJ; Jakob PM
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(6):20120271. PubMed ID: 23610088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Three-dimensional ultrashort echo magnetic resonance imaging of orthodontic appliances in the natural dentition.
Cox RJ; Kau CH; Rasche V
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Oct; 142(4):552-61. PubMed ID: 22999679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effects of orthodontic appliances on the diagnostic capability of magnetic resonance imaging in the head and neck region: A systematic review.
Hasanin M; Kaplan SEF; Hohlen B; Lai C; Nagshabandi R; Zhu X; Al-Jewair T
Int Orthod; 2019 Sep; 17(3):403-414. PubMed ID: 31285157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Galvanic corrosion behavior of orthodontic archwire alloys coupled to bracket alloys.
Iijima M; Endo K; Yuasa T; Ohno H; Hayashi K; Kakizaki M; Mizoguchi I
Angle Orthod; 2006 Jul; 76(4):705-11. PubMed ID: 16808581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effects of orthodontic appliances on the diagnostic quality of magnetic resonance images of the head.
Zhylich D; Krishnan P; Muthusami P; Rayner T; Shroff M; Doria A; Tompson B; Lou W; Suri S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2017 Mar; 151(3):484-499. PubMed ID: 28257733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The effects of a common stainless steel orthodontic bracket on the diagnostic quality of cranial and cervical 3T- MR images: a prospective, case-control study.
Cassetta M; Pranno N; Stasolla A; Orsogna N; Fierro D; Cavallini C; Cantisani V
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2017 Aug; 46(6):20170051. PubMed ID: 28452576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of the effect of bracket and archwire composition on frictional forces in the buccal segments.
Nair SV; Padmanabhan R; Janardhanam P
Indian J Dent Res; 2012; 23(2):203-8. PubMed ID: 22945710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Influence of orthodontic appliance-derived artifacts on 3-T MRI movies.
Ozawa E; Honda EI; Parakonthun KN; Ohmori H; Shimazaki K; Kurabayashi T; Ono T
Prog Orthod; 2018 Feb; 19(1):7. PubMed ID: 29457192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Frictional resistances using Teflon-coated ligatures with various bracket-archwire combinations.
De Franco DJ; Spiller RE; von Fraunhofer JA
Angle Orthod; 1995; 65(1):63-72; discussion 73-4. PubMed ID: 7726464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Composition and in vitro corrosion of orthodontic appliances.
Grimsdottir MR; Gjerdet NR; Hensten-Pettersen A
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1992 Jun; 101(6):525-32. PubMed ID: 1350883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of the frictional coefficients for selected archwire-bracket slot combinations in the dry and wet states.
Kusy RP; Whitley JQ; Prewitt MJ
Angle Orthod; 1991; 61(4):293-302. PubMed ID: 1763840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Magnetic permeability as a predictor of the artefact size caused by orthodontic appliances at 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging.
Blankenstein FH; Asbach P; Beuer F; Glienke J; Mayer S; Zachriat C
Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Jan; 21(1):281-289. PubMed ID: 26984824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Magnetic resonance imaging artefacts and fixed orthodontic attachments].
Beau A; Bossard D; Gebeile-Chauty S
Orthod Fr; 2017 Jun; 88(2):131-138. PubMed ID: 28597834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An in vitro investigation on friction generated by ceramic brackets.
Tecco S; Teté S; Festa M; Festa F
World J Orthod; 2010; 11(4):e133-44. PubMed ID: 21490982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Predictability of magnetic susceptibility artifacts from metallic orthodontic appliances in magnetic resonance imaging.
Blankenstein F; Truong BT; Thomas A; Thieme N; Zachriat C
J Orofac Orthop; 2015 Jan; 76(1):14-29. PubMed ID: 25420942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Forces in the presence of ceramic versus stainless steel brackets with unconventional vs conventional ligatures.
Baccetti T; Franchi L; Camporesi M
Angle Orthod; 2008 Jan; 78(1):120-4. PubMed ID: 18193950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of common orthodontic appliances on the diagnostic quality of cranial magnetic resonance images.
Elison JM; Leggitt VL; Thomson M; Oyoyo U; Wycliffe ND
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Oct; 134(4):563-72. PubMed ID: 18929275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Nickel allergy and orthodontics.
Rahilly G; Price N
J Orthod; 2003 Jun; 30(2):171-4. PubMed ID: 12835436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
