Abstract
The microthread neck concept has been applied to dental implants. This study investigated the pullout strength and destruction volume of orthodontic microimplants with and without the microthread neck design. Fifteen microimplants (diameter: 1.5 × 10 mm) of three types (Types A and B: without microimplant neck; Type C: with microimplant neck) were tested. The insertion torque (IT), Periotest value (PTV), horizontal pullout strength (HPS), and horizontal destruction volume (HDV) of each type were measured. Kruskal–Wallis H test and Dunn’s post-hoc comparison test were performed to compare the measured values of the three types of microimplants. The correlations of the measured values were used to perform the Spearman’s correlation coefficient analysis. The ITs of Types B (8.8 Ncm) and C (8.9 Ncm) were significantly higher than those of Type A (5.2 Ncm). Type B yielded the lowest PTV (4.1), and no statistical differences in PTV were observed among the three types. Type A had a significantly lower HPS (158.8 Ncm) than Types B (226.9 Ncm) and C (212.8 Ncm). The three types did not exhibit any significant differences in the HDV. The results of the Spearman’s correlation coefficient test revealed that HDV (ρ = 0.710) and IT (ρ = 0.813) were strongly correlated with HPS, whereas for PTV and HPS, it was not. HPS was strongly and significantly correlated with HDV. The orthodontic microimplant with a microimplant neck design did not perform better than that without a microthread in the mechanical strength test.
Highlights
The control of unwanted tooth movement during orthodontic treatment is challenging, especially in cases of complex malocclusion
Orthodontic microimplants differ in several aspects, including geometric shape, material, size, and implant placement technique
The high primary stability of microimplants is critical in orthodontics because it enables orthodontists to perform the loading of microimplants immediately after placement, which improves efficiency
Summary
The control of unwanted tooth movement during orthodontic treatment is challenging, especially in cases of complex malocclusion. Microimplants in the maxilla and mandible are a form of skeletal anchorage that aid in complex orthodontic treatment [1,2]. Because of their ability to control tooth movement selectively and efficiently, microimplants have become increasingly prevalent in orthodontic treatment. Primary stability refers to mechanical interlocking between a microimplant and the surrounding bone, which is a short-term phenomenon. Secondary stability refers to a biological phenomenon in which the bone surrounding the microimplant is modified shortly after implant placement and the new bone formed attaches to the microimplant.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
