AUTOLIGADO VS. LIGADO CONVENCIONAL 1 | Page 17

self-ligating brackets, low friction ligatures, and archwire on frictional resistance , European Journal of Orthodontics 29 (2007) 390–397.  Jacobs C, Gebhathardt P, Jacobs V, Hechtner M, Melia D, Wehrbein H: Root resorption, treatment time and extraction rate during orthodontic treatment with self – ligating and convencional brackets, 2004:1-7.  Weltma BJ. Root resorption associated with orthodontic tooth movement: A Systematic Review. The Ohio State University. 2009.  Artun J, HullenaarR, Doppel D, Kuijpers A: Identification of orthodontic patients at risk of severe apical root resorption: 2016: 448 -455.  Leitea V, Contib AC, Navarro R, Almeida M, Navarro PO, Almedia R. Comparison of root resorption between self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets using cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthodontist. 2012. 1078 -1082.  Paduano S, Cioffi I, Iodice G, Rapuano A, Silva R. Time efficiency of self-ligating vs conventional brackets in orthodontics: effect of appliances and ligating systems. PROGRESS in ORTHODONTICS 2008; 9(2):30-36.  Prettyman C; Best M; Lindauer S; Tufekcid E. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets as perceived by orthodontists. Angle Orthodontist. 2012.  Johanssona K, Lundstro F. Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets A prospective randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthodontist, Vol 82, No 5, 2012. 829 – 934. 17