271 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7661146)
1. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study.
Zarrinnia K; Eid NM; Kehoe MJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1995 Sep; 108(3):284-93. PubMed ID: 7661146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding.
Osorio R; Toledano M; García-Godoy F
ASDC J Dent Child; 1998; 65(5):313-7, 354. PubMed ID: 9795734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin removal methods.
Vidor MM; Felix RP; Marchioro EM; Hahn L
Dental Press J Orthod; 2015; 20(2):61-7. PubMed ID: 25992989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. In-vivo evaluation of the surface roughness and morphology of enamel after bracket removal and polishing by different techniques.
Faria-Júnior ÉM; Guiraldo RD; Berger SB; Correr AB; Correr-Sobrinho L; Contreras EF; Lopes MB
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Mar; 147(3):324-9. PubMed ID: 25726399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Effect of adhesive remnant removal on enamel topography after bracket debonding.
Cardoso LA; Valdrighi HC; Vedovello Filho M; Correr AB
Dental Press J Orthod; 2014; 19(6):105-12. PubMed ID: 25628087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effects of various debonding and adhesive clearance methods on enamel surface: an in vitro study.
Fan XC; Chen L; Huang XF
BMC Oral Health; 2017 Feb; 17(1):58. PubMed ID: 28241812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The extent of enamel surface fractures. A quantitative comparison of thermally debonded ceramic and mechanically debonded metal brackets by energy dispersive micro- and image-analysis.
Stratmann U; Schaarschmidt K; Wegener H; Ehmer U
Eur J Orthod; 1996 Dec; 18(6):655-62. PubMed ID: 9009430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirements.
Krell KV; Courey JM; Bishara SE
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1993 Mar; 103(3):258-66. PubMed ID: 8456784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Evaluation of enamel roughness after orthodontic debonding and clean-up procedures using zirconia, tungsten carbide, and white stone burs: an in vitro study.
Thawaba AA; Albelasy NF; Elsherbini AM; Hafez AM
BMC Oral Health; 2023 Jul; 23(1):478. PubMed ID: 37443027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro.
Ryf S; Flury S; Palaniappan S; Lussi A; van Meerbeek B; Zimmerli B
Eur J Orthod; 2012 Feb; 34(1):25-32. PubMed ID: 21228118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of bond strength of three adhesives: composite resin, hybrid GIC, and glass-filled GIC.
Rix D; Foley TF; Mamandras A
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Jan; 119(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 11174538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding.
Campbell PM
Angle Orthod; 1995; 65(2):103-10. PubMed ID: 7785800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Bracket bonding with 15- or 60-second etching and adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding.
Osorio R; Toledano M; Garcia-Godoy F
Angle Orthod; 1999 Feb; 69(1):45-8. PubMed ID: 10022184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system.
Ghaleb L; Al-Worafi NA; Thawaba A; Abdulqader AA; Alkamel A; Abdo Y; Yang Z; Noman N; Al-Aroomi MA; Yulou T
BMC Oral Health; 2024 Mar; 24(1):358. PubMed ID: 38509532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of different resin removal methods on enamel after metal and ceramic bracket debonding : An in vitro micro-computed tomography study.
Cesur E; Arslan C; Orhan AI; Bilecenoğlu B; Orhan K
J Orofac Orthop; 2022 May; 83(3):157-171. PubMed ID: 34165586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
