Effects of Rigid and Nonrigid Connections between the Miniscrew and Anchorage Tooth on Dynamics, Efficacy, and Adverse Effects of Maxillary Second Molar Protraction: A Finite Element Analysis.

Introduction: Direct, rigid indirect, and nonrigid indirect absolute anchorages using temporary anchorage devices (TADs, mini-implants/miniscrews) can provide promising opportunities for challenging, yet common, orthodontic tooth movements such as molar protraction. Rigid rectangular wire and ligature wire are the most common methods of attaching a tooth to a miniscrew in indirect anchorages. We aimed to provide a comparison of the rigidity of the connecting wire in terms of stress on the miniscrew, the anchorage loss, and the risk of root resorption using finite element analysis (FEA). Methods: The maxillary right second molar was protracted into the proximal space at a 150 g load (1) using direct absolute anchorage with a tapered miniscrew implanted between the premolar roots and using indirect absolute anchorage with the second premolar reinforced by the miniscrew through (2) a rigid stainless steel (SS) wire or (3) a nonrigid SS ligature wire (4) at different elastic moduli. Stresses and displacements of 4 models' elements were measured. The risk of external root resorption was evaluated. Results: Connecting the tooth to the miniscrew using rigid full-size wire (model 2) compared to ligature (model 3) can give better control of the anchorage (using the ligature wire, the anchorage loss is 1.5 times larger than the rectangular wire) and may reduce the risk of root resorption of the anchorage unit. However, the risk of miniscrew failure increases with a rigid connection, although it is still lower than with direct anchorage. The miniscrew stress when using a ligature is approximately 30% of the rigid model using the rectangular wire. The miniscrew stress using the rectangular wire is approximately 82.4% of the miniscrew stress in the direct model. Parametric analysis shows that the higher the elastic modulus of the miniscrew-tooth connecting wire in the indirect anchorage, the less the anchorage loss/palatal rotation of the premolars/and the risk of root resorption of the anchorage teeth and instead the stress on the miniscrew increases. Conclusions: Direct anchorage (followed by rigid indirect anchorage but not nonrigid) might be recommended when the premolars should not be moved or premolar root resorption is a concern. Miniscrew loosening risk might be the highest in direct anchorage and lowest in nonrigid indirect anchorage (which might be recommended for poor bone densities).

Dynamics, Efficacies, and Adverse Effects of Maxillary Full-Arch Intrusion Using Temporary Anchorage Devices (Miniscrews): A Finite Element Analysis.

Introduction: Absolute anchorages obtained from temporary anchorage devices (TADs, miniscrews) considerably facilitate dental movements and make some very difficult movements such as full-arch intrusions possible. Despite the significance of assessing strategies to fully intrude the arch using mini-implants, there is no study in this regard except a few case reports. Therefore, we simulated/tested 4 scenarios. Methods: Four maxilla models were created with different miniscrews/appliances: (1) two miniscrews were placed distal to laterals and one in the mid sagittal region. (2) Two mini-implants were inserted in mesial of canines and 2 others between bilateral first and second molars, plus another TAD in the midpalatal area, plus a transpalatal arch (TPA). (3) Two mini-implants were inserted between bilateral canines and first premolars and 2 others between bilateral first and second molars + TPA. (4) Two mini-implants were installed between lateral-and-canine and 2 miniscrews between second premolars and first molars + TPA. Intrusive forces (80 g anterior, 150 g posterior) were exerted using stainless-steel coil springs. Stresses/displacements were measured. Risk of external root resorption was evaluated. Results: The highest amounts of incisor/molar intrusion were seen in model 1. Model 2 had fewer intrusions, but its control over undesired movements was greater. Model 4 drastically reduced molar intrusion and considerably increased premolar intrusion. Overall amounts of intrusion were highest in the first 2 models, marking them as proper candidates for cases needing greater intrusion extents. Model 2 may be useful when miniscrew loosening/failure is a concern, while model 1 is recommended when fewer miniscrews are allowed. Overall, the highest and lowest root resorptions might occur in models 1 and 4, respectively. Conclusions: Each model showed certain efficacies/drawbacks and thus is recommended for a particular set of cases. Therefore, depending on the diagnosis and treatment plan, one or more of these scenarios might be desirable.