Self-ligating brackets: where are we now?

References

• Stolzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. Int J Orthod Dent Children 1935; 21: 837–840.
   Google Scholar
• Wildman AJ. Round table—the Edgelok bracket. J Clin Orthod 1972; 6: 613–623.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berger JL. The SPEED appliance: a 14 year update on this unique self-ligating orthodontic mechanism. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994; 105: 217–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harradine NWT, Birnie DJ. The clinical use of Activa self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 109: 319–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res 1998; 1: 52–61.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Damon DH. The Damon low friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod 1998; 32: 670–680.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taloumis LJ, Smith TM, Hondrum SO, Lorton L. Force decay and deformation of orthodontic elastomeric ligatures. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997; 111: 1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maijer R, Smith DC. Time saving with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod 1990; 24: 29–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994; 106: 472–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorstenson BS, Kusy RP. Resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets versus conventional stainless steel twin brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet (saliva) states. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001; 120: 361–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sims APT, 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: 377–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sims APT, Waters NE, Birnie DJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement ex vivo through three types of preadjusted brackets when subjected to determined tip or torque values. Br J Orthod 1994; 21: 367–373.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berger JL. The influence of the SPEED bracket’s self-ligating design on force levels in tooth movement: a comparative in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990; 97: 219–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997; 111: 119–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas S, Birnie DJ, Sherriff M. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self ligating brackets and two types of preadjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 589–596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapur R, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Frictional resistance of the Damon SL bracket. J Clin Orthod 1998; 32: 485–489.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pizzoni L, Raunholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 283–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meling TR, Ødegaard 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 Dentofac Orthop 1997; 112: 41–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loftus BP, Ârtun J, Nicholls JI, Alonzo TA, Stoner JA. Evaluation of friction during sliding tooth movement in various bracket-archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999; 116: 336–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read-Ward GE Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. Br J Orthod 1997; 24: 309–317.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thorstenson BS, 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 Dentofac Orthop 2002; 121: 472–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun S, Bluestein M, Moore BK, Benson G. Friction in perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999; 115: 619–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly D, Dowling PA, Lagerstrom L, Swartz ML. An ex-vivo investigation into the effect of bracket displacement on resistance to sliding. Br J Orthod 1999; 26: 219–227.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pilon JGM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Maltha JC. Magnitude of orthodontic forces and rate of bodily tooth movement. An experimental study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 110: 16–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koenig HA, Burstone CJ. Force systems from an ideal arch—large deflection considerations. Angle Orthod 1989; 59: 11–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harradine NWT. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001; 4: 220–227.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Matasa CG (Ed.). Self-engaging brackets: passive vs. active. Orthodont Materials Insider 1996; 9: 5–11.
   Google Scholar
• Meling TR, Ødegaard J. The effect of temperature on the elastic responses to longitudinal torsion of rectangular nickel-titanium archwires. Angle Orthod 1998; 68: 357–368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santoro M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Pseudoelasticity and thermoelasticity of nickel titanium alloys: a clinically oriented review. Part 1: deactivation forces. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001; 119: 594–603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorstenson BS, 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 Dentofac Orthop 2002; 122: 295–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khouri SA. The Bendistal pliers: a solution for distal end bending of super-elastic wires. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998; 114: 675–676.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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: 228–234.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar