This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Fauchard P. Le Chirurgien Dentiste. Second edition, 1746. Paris, France.Search in Google Scholar
Angle EH. The latest and best in orthodontic mechanism. Dental Cosmos 1928;70:1143–58.Search in Google Scholar
Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955;34:849–53.Search in Google Scholar
Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: progress report. Am J Orthod 1965;51:901–12.Search in Google Scholar
Andrews LF. The straight-wire appliance, origin, controversy, commentary. J Clin Orthod 1976;10:99–114.Search in Google Scholar
Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:220–7.Search in Google Scholar
Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J 2005;21:123–7.Search in Google Scholar
Roth RH. The straight-wire appliance 17 years later. J Clin Orthod 1987;21:632–42.Search in Google Scholar
McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. The transition from standard edgewise to preadjusted appliance systems. J Clin Orthod 1989;23:142–53.Search in Google Scholar
Rinchuse DJ, Rinchuse DJ, Kapur-Wadhwa R. Orthodontic appliance design. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131:76–82.Search in Google Scholar
Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod 2003;30:262–73.Search in Google Scholar
Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F. Evaluation of friction of conventional and metal-insert ceramic brackets in various bracket-archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124: 403–9.Search in Google Scholar
Stolzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. Int J Orthod Dent Children 1935;21:837–40.Search in Google Scholar
Damon DH. The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod 1998; 32:670–80.Search in Google Scholar
Sims AP, Waters NE, Birnie DJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement ex vivo through three types of pre-adjusted brackets when subjected to determined tip or torque values. Br J Orthod 1994;21:367–73.Search in Google Scholar
Maijer R, Smith DC. Time savings with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod 1990;24:29–31.Search in Google Scholar
Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:228–34.Search in Google Scholar
Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:472–80.Search in Google Scholar
Taloumis LJ, Smith TM, Hondrum SO, Lorton L. Force decay and deformation of orthodontic elastomeric ligatures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:1–11.Search in Google Scholar
Dowling PA, Jones WB, Lagerstom L, Sandham JA. An investigation into the behavioural characteristics of orthodontic elastomeric modules. Br J Orthod 1998;25:197–202.Search in Google Scholar
Rock WP, Wilson HJ, Fisher SE. Force reduction of orthodontic elastomeric chains after one month in the mouth. Br J Orthod 1986;13:147–50.Search in Google Scholar
Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P The effect of ligation method on friction in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:416–22.Search in Google Scholar
Sims AP, Waters NE, Birnie DJ, Pethybridge RJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating brackets and a pre-adjusted bracket employing two types of ligation. Eur J Orthod 1993; 15:377–85.Search in Google Scholar
Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Failure rate of self-ligating and edgewise brackets bonded with conventional acid etching and a self-etching primer: a prospective in vivo study. Angle Orthod 2006;76:119–22.Search in Google Scholar
Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davis EH. A comparison of selfligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. Br J Orthod 1997;24:309–17.Search in Google Scholar
Pandis N, Strigou S, Eliades T. Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a prospective clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res 2006;9:193–8.Search in Google Scholar
Schumacher HA, Bourauel C, Drescher D. The friction behavior of the ceramic bracket in archwire-guided tooth movement. Fortschr Kieferorthop 1990;51:259–65.Search in Google Scholar
Meling TR, Odegaard J, Holthe K, Segner D. The effect of friction on the bending stiffness of orthodontic beams: a theoretical and in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:41–9.Search in Google Scholar
Bednar JR, Gruendeman GW, Sandrik JL. A comparative study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100: 513–22.Search in Google Scholar
Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:119–40.Search in Google Scholar
Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie D. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of selfligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20:589–96.Search in Google Scholar
Kapur R, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Frictional resistance of the Damon SL bracket. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:485–9.Search in Google Scholar
Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:283–91.Search in Google Scholar
Khambay B, Millett D, McHugh S. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:327–32.Search in Google Scholar
Griffiths HS, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Resistance to sliding with 3 types of elastomeric modules. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:670–5.Search in Google Scholar
Tecco S, Festa F, Caputi S, Traini T, Di Iorio D, D’Attilio M. Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10 bracket model. Angle Orthod 2005;75:1041–5.Search in Google Scholar
Henao SP, Kusy RP. Frictional evaluations of dental typodont models using four self-ligating designs and a conventional design. Angle Orthod 2005;75:75–85.Search in Google Scholar
Matasa CG. Self-engaging brackets: passive vs active. Orthodontic Materials Insider 1996;9:5–11.Search in Google Scholar
Henao SP, Kusy RP. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental typodonts. Angle Orthod 2004;74:202–11.Search in Google Scholar
Meikle MC. The tissue, cellular, and molecular regulation of orthodontic tooth movement: 100 years after Carl Sandstedt. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:221–40.Search in Google Scholar
Braun S, Bluestein M, Moore BK, Benson G. Friction in perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115: 619–27.Search in Google Scholar
Loftus BP, Artun J, Nicholls JI, Alonzo TA, Stoner JA. Evaluation of friction during sliding tooth movement in various bracket-arch wire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:336–45.Search in Google Scholar
Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Comparison of resistance to sliding between different self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and saliva states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:472–82.Search in Google Scholar
Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Effect of archwire size and material on the resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:295–305.Search in Google Scholar
O’Reilly D, Dowling PA, Lagerstrom L, Swartz ML. An exvivo investigation into the effect of bracket displacement on the resistance to sliding. Br J Orthod 1999;26:219–27.Search in Google Scholar
Iwasaki LR, Beatty MW, Nickel JC. Friction and orthodontic mechanics: clinical studies of moment and ligation effects. Semin Orthod 2003;9:290–7.Search in Google Scholar
Berger J, Byloff FK. The clinical efficiency of self-ligated brackets. J Clin Orthod 2001;35:304–8.Search in Google Scholar
Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131: 395–9.Search in Google Scholar
Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 2006;76:480–5.Search in Google Scholar
Garino F, Favero L. Control of tooth movements with the Speed system. Prog Orthod 2003;4:23–30.Search in Google Scholar
Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res 1998;1: 52–61.Search in Google Scholar
Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. A comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 pre-adjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop (In press)Search in Google Scholar
Cash AC, Good SA, Curtis RV, McDonald F. An evaluation of slot size in orthodontic brackets: are standards as expected? Angle Orthod 2004;74:450–3.Search in Google Scholar
Gioka C, Eliades T. Materials-induced variation in the torque expression of preadjusted appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:323–8.Search in Google Scholar
Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets: present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:216–22.Search in Google Scholar
Kattner PF, Schneider BJ. Comparison of Roth appliance and standard edgewise appliance treatment results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:24–32.Search in Google Scholar
