This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: a progress report. Am J Orthod 1965;51:901–12.Search in Google Scholar
Kinch AP, Taylor H, Warltier R, Oliver RG, Newcombe RG. A clinical trial comparing the failure rates of directly bonded brackets using etch times of 15 or 60 seconds. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:476–83.Search in Google Scholar
Sonis AL, Snell W. An evaluation of a fluoride-releasing, visible light-activated bonding system for orthodontic bracket placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 95:306–11.Search in Google Scholar
Pandis N, Christensen L, Eliades T. Long-term clinical failure rate of molar tubes bonded with a self-etching primer. Angle Orthod 2005;75:1000–2.Search in Google Scholar
Millett DT, Hallgren A, Fornell AC, Robertson M. Bonded molar tubes: a retrospective evaluation of clinical performance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:667–74.Search in Google Scholar
Zachrisson BJ. A posttreatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1977;71:173–89.Search in Google Scholar
Evans LB, Powers JM. Factors affecting in-vitro bond strength of no-mix orthodontic cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1985;87:508–12.Search in Google Scholar
Hormati AA, Fuller JL, Denehy GY. Effects of contamination and mechanical disturbance on the quality of acid etched enamel. J Am Dent Assoc 1980;100:34–8.Search in Google Scholar
Mardaga WJ, Shannon IL. Decreasing the depth of etch for direct bonding in orthodontics. J Clin Orthod 1982;16: 130–2.Search in Google Scholar
Whittaker DK. Structural variations in the surface zone of human tooth enamel observed by scanning electron microscopy. Arch Oral Biol 1982;27:383–92.Search in Google Scholar
Mattick CR, Hobson RS. A comparative micro-topographic study of the buccal enamel of different tooth types. J Orthod 2000;27:143–8.Search in Google Scholar
Gray GB, Carey GP, Jagger DC. An in vitro investigation of a comparison of bond strengths of composite to etched and air-abraded human enamel surfaces. J Prosthodont 2006;15: 2–8.Search in Google Scholar
Olsen ME, Bishara SE, Damon P, Jakobsen JR. Comparison of shear bond strength and surface structure between conventional acid etching and air-abrasion of human enamel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:502–6.Search in Google Scholar
Abu Alhaija ES, Al-Wahadni AM. Evaluation of shear bond strength with different enamel pre-treatments. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:179–84.Search in Google Scholar
Miles PG, Weyant RJ. A clinical comparison of two chemically-cured adhesives used for indirect bonding. J Orthod 2003;30:331–6.Search in Google Scholar
Miles PG. A comparison of retention rates of brackets with thermally-cured and light-cured custom bases in indirect bonding procedures. Aust Orthod J 2000;16:115–17.Search in Google Scholar
Aguirre MJ, King GJ, Waldron JM. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1982;82: 269–76.Search in Google Scholar
Read MJ, O’Brien KD. A clinical trial of an indirect bonding technique with a visible light-cured adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:259–62.Search in Google Scholar
Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod 1978;74:62–78.Search in Google Scholar
Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. A comparative assessment of the failure rate of molar tubes bonded with a self-etching primer and conventional acid-etching. World J Orthod 2006;7:41–4.Search in Google Scholar
House K, Ireland AJ, Sherriff M. An investigation into the use of a single component self-etching primer adhesive system for orthodontic bonding: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Orthod 2006;33:38–44.Search in Google Scholar
Noble J, Karaiskos NE, Wiltshire WA. In vivo bonding of orthodontic brackets to fluorosed enamel using an adhesion promotor. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:357–60.Search in Google Scholar
