148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37823083)
1. Survival rate of indirectly bonded brackets using single vs. two-component orthodontic adhesive: A 12-month split-mouth clinical trial.
Pellitteri F; Cremonini F; Bellavia M; Palone M; Lombardo L
Saudi Dent J; 2023 Sep; 35(6):657-662. PubMed ID: 37823083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Construction of an
Goyal S; Kulkarni N; Naik A; Naik B
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2022 Feb; 23(2):193-201. PubMed ID: 35748449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: an in vitro and in vivo study.
Summers A; Kao E; Gilmore J; Gunel E; Ngan P
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2004 Aug; 126(2):200-6; quiz 254-5. PubMed ID: 15316475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. In vivo evaluation of two new moisture-resistant orthodontic adhesive systems: a comparative clinical trial.
Mavropoulos A; Karamouzos A; Kolokithas G; Athanasiou AE
J Orthod; 2003 Jun; 30(2):139-47; discussion 127-8. PubMed ID: 12835430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. In vivo evaluation of a moisture-activated orthodontic adhesive: a comparative clinical trial.
Karamouzos A; Mavropoulos A; Athanasiou AE; Kolokithas G
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2002 Aug; 5(3):170-8. PubMed ID: 12194667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 2: Bonding on dry enamel and on enamel soaked with saliva.
Cacciafesta V; Bosch C; Melsen B
Clin Orthod Res; 1999 Nov; 2(4):186-93. PubMed ID: 10806942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An 18-month clinical study of bond failures with resin-modified glass ionomer cement in orthodontic practice.
Hitmi L; Muller C; Mujajic M; Attal JP
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Oct; 120(4):406-15. PubMed ID: 11606966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of different orthodontic adhesives.
Bishara SE; Laffoon JF; Vonwald L; Warren JJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2002 May; 121(5):521-5. PubMed ID: 12045771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A Comparative Evaluation of Enamel Surface Roughness of Two Different Bonding Adhesives After Debonding With Atomic Force Microscopy.
Doddavarapu S; K B; Singaraju GS; Yamini Priyanka JS; Vivek Reddy G; Mandava P
Cureus; 2022 Nov; 14(11):e31661. PubMed ID: 36420047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Onto the Tooth Enamel of 120 Freshly Extracted Adult Bovine Medial Lower Incisors Using 4 Adhesives: A Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Adhesive, a Composite Adhesive, a Liquid Composite Adhesive, and a One-Step Light-Cured Adhesive.
Prylińska-Czyżewska A; Maciejewska-Szaniec Z; Olszewska A; Polichnowska M; Grabarek BO; Dudek D; Sobański D; Czajka-Jakubowska A
Med Sci Monit; 2022 Dec; 28():e938867. PubMed ID: 36540003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. A clinical comparison of two chemically-cured adhesives used for indirect bonding.
Miles PG; Weyant RJ
J Orthod; 2003 Dec; 30(4):331-6; discussion 299. PubMed ID: 14634172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Single-component orthodontic adhesives: comparison of the clinical and in vitro performance.
Ok U; Aksakalli S; Eren E; Kechagia N
Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Jun; 25(6):3987-3999. PubMed ID: 33404765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A comparative clinical trial of a compomer and a resin adhesive for orthodontic bonding.
Millett DT; McCluskey LA; McAuley F; Creanor SL; Newell J; Love J
Angle Orthod; 2000 Jun; 70(3):233-40. PubMed ID: 10926433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets Part 1: Wetting with water.
Cacciafesta V; Bosch C; Melsen B
Clin Orthod Res; 1998 Aug; 1(1):29-36. PubMed ID: 9918643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison of two indirect bonding adhesives.
Miles PG; Weyant RJ
Angle Orthod; 2005 Nov; 75(6):1019-23. PubMed ID: 16448248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Twelve-month bracket failure rate with amorphous calcium phosphate bonding system.
Hammad SM; El Banna MS; Elsaka SE
Eur J Orthod; 2013 Oct; 35(5):622-7. PubMed ID: 22940263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Laboratory evaluation of a compomer and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement for orthodontic bonding.
Millett DT; Cattanach D; McFadzean R; Pattison J; McColl J
Angle Orthod; 1999 Feb; 69(1):58-63; discussion 64. PubMed ID: 10022186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
