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).