194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36058991)
1. Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study.
Aboujaoude R; Kmeid R; Gebrael C; Amm E
Prog Orthod; 2022 Sep; 23(1):31. PubMed ID: 36058991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Digital assessment of direct and virtual indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets: A clinical prospective cross-sectional comparative investigation.
Panayi NC; Tsolakis AI; Athanasiou AE
Int Orthod; 2020 Dec; 18(4):714-721. PubMed ID: 33129700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Reproducibility of digital indirect bonding technique using three-dimensional (3D) models and 3D-printed transfer trays.
Duarte MEA; Gribel BF; Spitz A; Artese F; Miguel JAM
Angle Orthod; 2020 Jan; 90(1):92-99. PubMed ID: 31411488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Accuracy of positioning three types of self-ligating brackets compared with a conventionally ligating bracket.
Birdsall J; Hunt NP; Sabbah W; Moseley HC
J Orthod; 2012 Mar; 39(1):34-42. PubMed ID: 22433325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Transfer accuracy of 3D-printed trays for indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets.
Bachour PC; Klabunde R; Grünheid T
Angle Orthod; 2022 May; 92(3):372-379. PubMed ID: 35006236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Transfer accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane trays for indirect bonding.
Grünheid T; Lee MS; Larson BE
Angle Orthod; 2016 May; 86(3):468-74. PubMed ID: 26355994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of the effect of using panoramic and cone-beam computed tomography on the accuracy of root position in indirect digital bracket placement: A retrospective study.
Yilmaz H; Eglenen MN
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2022 Aug; 25(3):401-408. PubMed ID: 34837461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of the accuracy of bracket placement between direct and indirect bonding techniques.
Koo BC; Chung CH; Vanarsdall RL
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Sep; 116(3):346-51. PubMed ID: 10474109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An evaluation of the accuracy of bracket positioning with and without loupes using 3Shape Ortho Analyzer software.
Thomas AA; Sivakumar A
J Taibah Univ Med Sci; 2023 Feb; 18(1):98-103. PubMed ID: 36398025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of bracket bonding between two CAD/CAM guided bonding devices: GBD-U vs GBD-B.
Wang P; Li W; Li B; Han X; Bai D; Xue C
J Dent; 2023 Apr; 131():104456. PubMed ID: 36849067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of transverse maxillary dental arch width changes with self-ligating and conventional brackets in patients requiring premolar extraction - A randomised clinical trial.
Bashir R; Sonar S; Batra P; Srivastava A; Singla A
Int Orthod; 2019 Dec; 17(4):687-692. PubMed ID: 31466930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Three-Dimensional Digital Superimposition of Orthodontic Bracket Position by Using a Computer-Aided Transfer Jig System: An Accuracy Analysis.
Park JH; Choi JY; Oh SH; Kim SH
Sensors (Basel); 2021 Sep; 21(17):. PubMed ID: 34502801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reproducibility of bracket positioning in the indirect bonding technique.
Nichols DA; Gardner G; Carballeyra AD
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Nov; 144(5):770-6. PubMed ID: 24182593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accuracy of 3-dimensional-printed customized transfer tray using a flash-free adhesive system in digital indirect bonding: An in vivo study.
Fiorillo G; Campobasso A; Caldara G; Battista G; Lo Muzio E; Mandelli G; Ambrosi A; Gastaldi G
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2023 Oct; 164(4):505-515. PubMed ID: 37074245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Accuracy of bracket position using thermoplastic and 3D-printed indirect bonding trays.
Shin SH; Lee KJ; Kim SJ; Yu HS; Kim KM; Hwang CJ; Cha JY
Int J Comput Dent; 2021 Jun; 24(2):133-145. PubMed ID: 34085499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Bracket transfer accuracy with two different three-dimensional printed transfer trays vs silicone transfer trays.
Hoffmann L; Sabbagh H; Wichelhaus A; Kessler A
Angle Orthod; 2022 May; 92(3):364-371. PubMed ID: 34982114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 3D printed indirect bonding trays: Transfer accuracy of hard versus soft resin material in a prospective, randomized, single-blinded clinical study.
Schwärzler A; Nemec M; Lettner S; Rank C; Schedle A; Jonke E
Dent Mater; 2023 Nov; 39(11):1058-1065. PubMed ID: 37806794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques.
Castilla AE; Crowe JJ; Moses JR; Wang M; Ferracane JL; Covell DA
Angle Orthod; 2014 Jul; 84(4):607-14. PubMed ID: 24555689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A Novel Technique for Accuracy in Horizontal, Vertical, and Axial Bracket Placement in Orthodontic Bonding.
Banker A; Vala V; Desai BB
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2021 Sep; 22(9):1076-1078. PubMed ID: 35000956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
