These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
267 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]
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]