References
- Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod 2003;30:262–73.
- Berger J, Byloff FK. The clinical efficiency of self-ligated brackets. J Clin Orthod 2001;35:304–8.
- Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency, Clin Orthod Res 2001; 4:220–7.
- Eberting JJ, Straja SP, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:228–34.
- Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:472–80.
- Harradine NW, Birnie DJ. The clinical use of Activa self-ligating brackets, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109: 319–28.
- Harradine N. The history and development of self-ligating brackets. Seminars in Orthod 2008;14:5–18.
- Alpern MC. Gaining control with self-ligation. Seminars in Orthod 2008;14:73–86.
- Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT. Self-ligating appliances: evolution or revolution? Aust Orthod J 2008;24:41–9.
- Maijer R, Smith DC. Time savings with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod 1990;24:29–31.
- Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132:208–15.
- 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.
- Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J 2005; 21:123–7.
- Miles PG. Self-ligating versus conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:223–5.
- Haeger RS, Colberg RT. Effects of missed appointments and bracket failures on treatment efficiency and office productivity. J Clin Orthod 2007;41:433–7.
- Skidmore KJ, Brook KJ, Thomson WM, Harding WJ. Factors influencing treatment time in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:230–8.
- Daniels C, Richmond S. The development of the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON). J Orthod 2000; 27:149–62.
- Vig PS, Weintraub JA, Brown C, Kowalski CJ. The duration of orthodontic treatment with and without extractions: a pilot study of five selected practices. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:45–51.
- Beckwith FR, Ackerman RJ Jr, Cobb CM, Tira DE. An evaluation of factors affecting duration of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:439–47.
- Alger DW. Appointment frequency versus treatment time, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:436–9.
- 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.
- Taylor PJS, Kerr WJS, McColl JH. Factors associated with the standard and duration of orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 1996; 23:335–41.
- Onyeaso CO, Begole EA. Relationship between index of complexity, outcome and need, dental aesthetic index, peer assessment index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:248–52.
- Templeton KM, Powell R, Moore MB, Williams AC, Sandy JR. Are the Peer Assessment Rating and the Index of Treatment Complexity, Outcome, and Need suitable measures for orthognathic outcomes? Eur J Orthod 2006;28: 462–6.
- Fox NA, Daniels C, Gilgrass T. A comparison of the index of complexity outcome and need (ICON) with the peer assessment rating (PAR) and the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN). Br Dent J 2002;193:225–30.