Fogorvosi szemle, 2020 (113. évfolyam, 1-4. szám)

2020-12-01 / 4. szám

FOGORVOSI SZEMLE113. évf. 4. sz. 2020.n 130 9. FJELD MORTEN, ØGAARD BJØRN: Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of enamel surfaces exposed to 3 orthodontic bonding systems. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Or­thopedics 2006, Volume 130, Issue 5, November 2006, 575–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.07.002 10. FOWLER PV: A twelve-month clinical trial comparing the bracket failure rates of light-cured resin-modified glass-ionomer adhesive and acid-etch chemical-cured composite. Australian Orthodontic Journal 1998, Vol. 15, No. 3, Oct 1998: 186–190. 11. FRICKER JP: A 12-month clinical evaluation of a glass polyalk­enoate cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontic and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1992, Volume 101, Issue 4, 381–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0889-5406(05)80332-4 12. GAWORSKI MATTHEW, WEINSTEIN MARTIN, BORISLOW ALAN J, BRAITMAN LEONARD E: Decalcification and bond failure: A comparison of a glass ionomer and a composite resin bonding system in vivo. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1999, Volume 116, Issue 5, November 1999, 518–521. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70182-4 13. HITMI LAÏLA, MULLER CHRISTINE, MUJAJIC MAGALI, ATTAL JEAN-PIERRE: An 18-month clinical study of bond failures with resin-modified glass ionomer cement in orthodontic practice. American Journal of Ortho­dontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2001, Volume 120, Issue 4, October 2001, 406–415. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.115931 14. HODGE TM, DHOPATKAR AA, ROCK WP, SPARY DJ: A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Accuracy of Direct versus Indi­rect Bracket Placement. Journal of Orthodontics 2004, Vol­ume: 31 issue: 2, page(s): 132–137. https://doi.org/10.1179/ 146531204225020427 15. IRELAND ANTHONY J, KNIGHT HELEN, SHERRIFF MARTYN: An in vivo in­vestigation into bond failure rates with a new self-etching primer system. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Ortho­pedics 2003, Volume 124, Issue 3, September 2003, 323–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00403-7 16. KOMORI AKIRA, ISHIKAWA HARUO: Evaluation of a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement for use as an orthodontic bonding agent. The Angle Orthodontist 1997, Vol. 67, No. 3: 189–196. 17. MAIJER R, SMITH DC: A compatison between zinc phosphate and glass ionomer cement in orthodontics. American Journal of Or­thodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1999, Volume 93 Num­ber 4, 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90156-4 18. MANNING N, CHADWICK SM, PLUNKETT D, MACFARLANE TV: A rand­omized clinical trial comparing ‘one-step’ and ‘two-step’ ortho­dontic bonding systems. Journal of Orthodontics 2006; 33: 4, 276–283. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531205225021825 19. MAVROPOULOS A, KARAMOUZOS A, KOLOKITHAS G, ATHANASIOU AE: In Vivo Evaluation of Two New Moisture-Resistant Orthodontic Ad­hesive Systems: A Comparative Clinical Trial. Journal of Ortho­dontics 2003, Volume: 30 issue: 2, page(s): 139–147. https://doi. org/10.1093/ortho/30.2.139 20. MENINI A, COZZANI M, SFONDRINI MF, AL. ET: A 15-month evaluation of bond failures of orthodontic brackets bonded with direct ver­sus indirect bonding technique: a clinical trial. Progress in Ortho­dontics 2014, 15., 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0070-9 21. MIGUEL JOSE AUGUSTO MENDES, ALMEIDA MARCO ANTONIO, CHEVITA­RESE ORLANDO: Clinical comparison between a glass ionomer ce­ment and a composite for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1995, Volume 107, Issue 5, May 1995, 484–487. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70115-X 22. MILLETT DT, MCCABE JF: Orthodontic bonding with glass ionomer cement-a review. European Journal of Orthodontics 1996, 18 (4): 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/18.4.385 23. MILLETT DT, MCCLUSKEY LA, MCAULEY F, CREANOR SL, NEWELL J, LOVE J: A Comparative Clinical Trial of a Compomer and a Res­in Adhesive for Orthodontic Bonding. Angle Orthodontist 2000, Vol 70, No 3, 2000. 24. MURFITT PG, QUICK AN, SWAIN MV, HERBISON GP: A randomised clinical trial to investigate bond failure rates using a self-etch­ing primer. European Journal of Orthodontics 2006, Volume 28, Issue 5, October 2006, 444–449. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/ cjl007 25. NICHOLSON JOHN W: Polyacid-modified composite resins (“com­pomers”). Dental Materials 2007, 23 (2007) 615–622. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.05.002 26. NOJIMA LINCOLN ISSAMU, ARAÚJO ADRIELE SILVEIRA, ALVES MATHEUS, JÚNIOR: Indirect orthodontic bonding – a modified technique for improved efficiency and precision. Dental Press J Orthod 2015, May–Jun; 20 (3): 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.20. 3.109-117.sar 27. ØGAARD BJØRN, FJELD MORTEN: The Enamel Surface and Bond­ing in Orthodontics. Seminars in Orthodontics 2010, Volume 16, Issue 1, March 2010, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2009. 12.003 28. RAHIOTIS C, SCHRICKER S: Bonding with glass ionomer cements and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Orthodontic Appli­cations of Biomaterials 2017, 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-08-100383-1.00016-3 29. RAJAGOPAL RANGASWAMY, PADMANABHAN SRIDEVI, GNANAMANI JANA­KIRAMA: A Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Debonding Characteristics of Conventional, Moisture-Insensitive, and Self­etching Primers In Vitro. The Angle Orthodontist 2004, Vol. 74, No. 2, 264–268. 30. REGAN D, LEMASNEY B, NOORT R VAN: The tensile bond strength of new and rebonded stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Europe­an Journal of Orthodontics 1993, Volume 15, Issue 2, April 1993, 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/15.2.125 31. REYNOLDS IR: A Review of Direct Orthodontic Bonding. British Journal of Orthodontics 1975; 2: 3, 171–178. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0301228X.1975.11743666 32. ROSSOUW P EMILE: A Historical Overview of the Development of the Acid-Etch Bonding System in Orthodontics. Seminars in Or­thodontics 2010, Volume 16, Issue 1, March 2010, 2–23. https:// doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2009.12.002 33. SWIFT EDWARD, PERDIGAO JORGE, HEYMANN H: Bonding to enamel and dentin: a brief history and state of the art, 1995. Quintessence in­ternational (Berlin, Germany: 1985) 1995; 26: 95–110. 34. TATE WH, YOU C, POWERS JM: Bond Strength of Compomers to Human Enamel. Operative Dentistry 2000, 25, 283–291. 35. THIYAGARAJAH S, SPARY DJ, ROCK WP: A clinical comparison of bracket bond failures in association with direct and indirect bond­ing. Journal of Orthodontics 2006, Vol. 33, 198–204. https://doi. org/10.1179/146531205225021615 36. VALENTE RUDOLFO M, RIJK WALDEMAR G DE, DRUMMOND JAMES L, EVANS CARLA A: Etching conditions for resin-modified glass ionomer ce­ment for orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2002, Volume 121, Issue 5, May 2002, 516–520. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.122165 37. YI GIA K, DUNN WILLIAM J, TALOUMIS LOUIS J: Shear bond strength comparison between direct and indirect bonded orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Or­thopedics 2003, Volume 124, Issue 5, November 2003, 577–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00503-1 38. ZACHRISSON BJÖRN U, BROBAKKEN BJÖRN O: Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. American Journal of Orthodontics 1978; Volume 74, Issue 1, 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90046-5

Next

/
  • Elrendezés
  • Igazítás
  • Forgatás
Oldalképek
Tartalom