Skip to main content
Download PDF

Success rates of single-thread and double-thread orthodontic miniscrews in the maxillary arch

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 191 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Aim

There is limited research on the clinical performance of double-thread orthodontic miniscrews. This study aimed to compare the stability of double-thread and single-thread orthodontic miniscrews and identify the potential associations between patient-related and location-related factors with miniscrew stability.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study involved 90 orthodontic miniscrews (45 single-thread, 45 double-thread) with identical dimensions (8 mm length, 1.6 mm diameter). The screws were inserted in various locations within the upper jaw of 83 patients (54 females, 29 males; mean age = 15.1 ± 2.4 years). Failure was defined as excessive mobility or loss of miniscrew after placement. The data recorded were patient age, gender, insertion site, side of insertion (buccal or lingual), duration of force application, and failure occurrence.

Results

The overall success rate within the sample was 92.2%. Double-thread miniscrews exhibited a significantly higher success rate than single-thread miniscrews (P = 0.049), with 97.8% and 86.7% success rates, respectively. Gender, age, insertion location, and side of insertion did not show significant associations with failure (P > 0.05). Log-rank analysis revealed a significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.046), indicating a higher probability of survival for the double-thread design.

Conclusions

The overall success rate of orthodontic miniscrews was high in the present sample. Double-thread miniscrews placed in various locations within the maxillary arch demonstrated superior stability and survival rates compared to their single-thread counterparts. Therefore, double-thread miniscrews may be preferred when bone quality is inadequate, such as in young patients.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The introduction of intra-bony implants by Branemark marked significant progress in various dental fields, including orthodontics. A temporary anchorage device (TAD) is a type of mini-implant inserted into the bone to overcome the longstanding challenge of anchorage control during orthodontic therapy and is removed after treatment completion. TADs are replacing conventional methods of anchorage control such as extra-oral appliances or trans palatal arches, helping to provide satisfactory outcomes in complex cases without compromising facial aesthetics or relying on patient cooperation [1,2,3].

Among various types of TADs, miniscrews are the most widely used in clinical practice due to their small size, ease of insertion and removal, and cost-effectiveness compared to other systems [4, 5]. Miniscrews enable efficient and versatile tooth movements such as intrusion or retraction of anterior and posterior teeth, correction of canted occlusal plane, unilateral space closure, and alignment of dental midlines [6,7,8,9].

Unlike osseointegrated implants, miniscrews do not require osseointegration and are typically loaded immediately after insertion. Therefore, achieving primary stability is crucial for successfully using miniscrews as a skeletal anchorage system [4]. Primary stability mainly depends on mechanical interlocking between the screw threads and the surrounding bone tissue [10]. However, miniscrews can sometimes become mobile and fail shortly after insertion. The success rate of miniscrews ranges from 60 to 93% [10, 11], which is lower than osseointegrated implants (96–99%) [3]. Various factors influence the success rate of miniscrews, including bone quality and quantity at the insertion site, smoking, screw diameter and length, thread design, surgical technique, jaw, and oral hygiene status [3, 6, 7, 12].

Maximizing the contact area between the screw and alveolar bone is an effective strategy to improve the primary stability of TADs, particularly in cases with inadequate bone quality or quantity. This goal may be achieved by increasing the diameter and length of the mini-implant [13, 14]. However, placing very long or thick screws is often impossible due to anatomical limitations and the risk of root contact. An alternative strategy is modifying the thread design to enhance mechanical retention and contact area with the alveolar bone. Double-thread miniscrews were developed to provide more excellent mechanical interlocking than traditional single-thread screws. The presence of micro threads in the upper part of the screw increases the contact area with the cortical bone, thereby improving stress distribution and primary stability of the mini-implant [5, 12, 14].

Previous studies have investigated the effect of various variables such as length, diameter, and thread features (shape, pitch, depth) on the primary stability of mini-implants in laboratory conditions [3, 4, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21] or animal studies [22,23,24,25]. However, it is essential to note that the mechanical properties of artificial bone and the bone quality of animals differ from humans [10, 14]. There is limited research on the clinical performance of double-thread compared to single-thread miniscrews. This study aimed to assess the clinical success rate and survival duration of double-thread and single-thread miniscrews and identify potential associations between patient-related (age, gender) and location-related (placement area and side) parameters with miniscrew stability.

Materials and methods

This retrospective cohort study included the records of patients who received miniscrews from March 2016 to August 2019. The inclusion criteria included inserting single-thread or double-thread miniscrews with identical specifications (8 mm length, 1.6 mm diameter) in various locations within the upper jaw. The treatment procedures were conducted in a private orthodontic clinic. Patients with maternal anomalies or systemic diseases, as well as smokers, or those using alcohol or medications affecting tooth movement, were excluded. The study protocol received approval from the ethics committee of Shahed University. Informed consent was obtained from all patients or their parents / legal guardians (if their age was less than 16 years old), adhering to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration.

The study sample was divided into two groups based on the design of the inserted miniscrews. The first group comprised 45 single-thread miniscrews (Jeil Medical Corporation, Seoul, Korea), while the second group included 45 double-thread miniscrews (KJ Meditech, Gwangju, Korea). All screws were fabricated from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4 V), featured a tapered shape, and had no surface treatment. These miniscrews were placed in 83 patients (54 females, 29 males) with a mean age of 15.1 ± 2.4 years, ranging from 12 to 23 years. Figure 1 illustrates the design of the miniscrews used in this study. The double-thread design featured micro threads in the upper portion of the miniscrew, exhibiting approximately half the pitch of the lower threads.

Fig. 1
figure 1

A schematic illustration of single-thread (left) and double-thread (right) miniscrews

Full size image

Miniscrews were inserted after levelling and aligning teeth in various upper jaw regions. A skilled orthodontist performed the surgical procedures under local anesthesia without predrilling or incision. A force of 150 g was applied immediately after surgery through NiTi closed coil springs. Patients were instructed to maintain proper oral hygiene and avoid striking the screws. Follow-up appointments were scheduled every four weeks, and failure was defined as the presence of excessive mobility or loss of a screw after insertion.

Data extracted from patients records were categorized into patient-related factors (age and gender), location-related factors (insertion site and side), and screw design factors (single-thread or double-thread). The duration of force application and occurrence of failure were recorded for each screw.

Statistical analysis

The chi-square test was applied to compare the success rate between the two screw designs (single-thread versus double-thread). The association between the miniscrew success rate and various variables, including gender, age, placement area, and insertion side (buccal or lingual), was assessed using the chi-square or Fisher’s exact test, when appropriate. The survival rate of miniscrews was compared between the two screw designs using the log-rank test. The statistical analysis was performed by SPSS software, version 16.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL), with a significance level set at P < 0.05.

Results

In this study, 90 miniscrews were inserted into various areas of the maxilla. Seven failures were observed in the sample, resulting in an overall success rate of 92.2% (83 out of 90 miniscrews). The earliest failure occurred after 3 days, while the latest was observed on day 45 following screw placement and force application. The minimum and maximum periods of force application to miniscrews ranged from 3 to 8 months.

Table 1 compares the success rate between single-thread and double-thread miniscrews within the sample. Failures were noted in 1 of the double-thread and 6 of the single-thread miniscrews. Statistical analysis using the chi-square test demonstrated a significant difference between the two designs (P = 0.049; Table 1), with the double-thread group exhibiting a significantly higher success rate (97.8%) than the single-thread (86.7%) design.

Table 1 Success rates of the single-thread and double-thread designs of miniscrews
Full size table

Table 2 outlines the association between the overall success rate of the miniscrews and some patient-related and location-related factors. There were no statistically significant differences in the success rate of the miniscrews between male and female patients (P = 0.242, Table 2) or between patients older or younger than 16 years of age (P = 0.723, Table 2). Additionally, the area of placement and the side of placement (buccal or lingual) did not significantly influence the success rate of miniscrews (P = 0.506 and P = 0.522, respectively; Table 2).

Table 2 The association between the success rate of the miniscrews in the upper jaw and some patient-related and location-related variables
Full size table

Table 3 presents the survival periods of the two screw designs at a 95% confidence interval. The estimated survival time was 194 days for the single-thread group and 239 days for the double-thread group. The log-rank analysis demonstrated a significant difference in the survival rate between the two groups (P = 0.046), indicating a higher probability of survival for the double-thread design.

Table 3 The survival distribution of the single-thread and double-thread miniscrews
Full size table

Discussion

The present study evaluated the clinical stability and survival of double-thread versus single-thread miniscrews while examining the impact of specific patient-related factors (gender and age) and location-related factors (area and side of insertion) on miniscrew success rates. The inclusion criteria were carefully structured to ensure that screw-related parameters, except the thread design, were consistent in both groups (8 mm length, 1.6 mm diameter). The evaluation was limited to machined-surface screws placed in the maxilla to minimize the impact of variables like surface treatment, cortical bone thickness, the quantity of keratinized tissue, and jaw vascularization on the miniscrew outcomes. Exclusion criteria effectively controlled for confounding variables such as systemic diseases and heavy smoking through precise case selection.

The orthodontic force of 150 g was immediately applied post-insertion using NiTi open coil springs. While there is some debate regarding the influence of immediate versus delayed loading on the survival rate of miniscrews [6], several studies suggest that immediate loading may enhance cellular turnover, resulting in comparable or improved results compared to implants with forces applied later [6, 26,27,28,29]. Manni et al. [6] recommended the application of immediate forces not exceeding 150–250 g to the screw.

In the present study, the overall success rate of the screws inserted in the maxillary arch was 92.2%, as defined by the absence of screw mobility during orthodontic force application. All failures occurred within 45 days of miniscrew insertion. Various factors have been proposed to contribute to miniscrew failure, including excessive loading, unscrewing due to interacting forces, inflammation around the screw, and application of torquing forces [6]. While the literature reports a wide range of success rates, most studies indicate success rates exceeding 80% for temporary anchorage devices [6, 10,11,12, 30,31,32]. Variability in success rates can be attributed to differences in miniscrew designs and criteria for defining treatment success, as well as variations in host and location factors among the studies.

Failure was observed in 6 screws from the single-thread group and 1 screw from the double-thread group. Statistical analysis revealed a significantly higher success rate for double-thread screws (97.8%) compared to single-thread screws (86.7%). Additionally, the probability of survival was significantly greater for double-thread screws (239 days) than for single-thread screws (194 days), indicating enhanced stability for the double-thread design in clinical conditions. These results suggest that using double-thread miniscrews in the maxilla significantly improves the success rate and ensures better implant survival until achieving treatment objectives, compared to conventional screws. The improved success rate of the double-thread design may be attributed to increased contact with the cortical bone provided by the upper micro threads, which enhances stress distribution and primary stability of the mini-implant [5, 12, 14].

The use of double-thread screws may be particularly advantageous in cases with limited quantity or quality of alveolar bone. Some examples are young patients with incomplete bone maturation or when anatomical constraints require the use of a small-diameter or short mini-implant [12, 14]. However, placing double-thread screws is associated with high insertion and removal torque, which can lead to overheating during insertion, excessive stress on the surrounding bone, and screw fracture in cases with thick cortical bone or high bone density [5, 14]. Therefore, it is recommended to limit the use of these screws to areas with lower bone density, especially in the maxilla. In contrast, the single-thread design may be more appropriate for the mandible, where the cortical bone is thicker and denser [5, 12].

The findings of this study align with previous studies that demonstrated improved mechanical properties of double-thread mini-implants [5, 14, 33]. Cha et al. [5] reported significantly higher maximum insertion torque with dual-thread than single-thread screws across all cortical bone thicknesses. Kim et al. [14] investigated various shapes of mini-implants, including cylindrical, taper, and dual-thread. They found that the dual-thread shape exhibited a gradual increase in insertion torque and a gentle decrease in removal torque compared to other designs. However, they argued that the dual-thread shape may need refinement to reduce insertion time and minimize stress on surrounding tissues [14].

In contrast to the findings of this study, Fukumoto et al. [34] exhibited comparable survival and bone-miniscrew contact (BMSC) rates in single- and dual-thread miniscrews placed on the palatal aspect of the maxillary tuberosity. Durrani et al. [20] indicated no significant difference in failure rates between dual-thread and single-thread TADs. Lee et al. [12] found comparable success rates of 82.1% and 84.4% for cylindrical and dual-thread miniscrews, respectively. They concluded that dual-thread miniscrews were not superior to cylindrical ones in terms of the long-term stability and clinical success rate [12].

In this study, the clinical success rate did not significantly differ between female (94.7%) and male (87.9%) subjects, which aligns with findings from most studies in the literature [11, 32, 34,35,36]. However, Manni et al. [6] reported a better success rate in males (88.1%) than in females (76.4%). They attributed this difference to the large sample size of their study and variations in cortical bone thickness and hormonal status between genders. The association between age and success rate was insignificant in this study; the success rate in patients younger than 16 years (93.0%) was comparable to those over 16 (90.9%). Some studies have also reported no significant difference in success rate between ages [11, 32, 36]. In contrast, several studies have found that adolescent patients have lower success rates with orthodontic miniscrews than older individuals [10, 12, 30, 37, 38]. This difference was attributed to lower bone density, thinner cortical bone, and higher bone turnover in growing subjects [10, 12]. The similar success rates across different ages observed in this study may be related to the use of double-thread screws in half of the patients, which provides more excellent mechanical stability than conventional screws, thus ensuring high clinical success even in young patients.

In this study, the screws were inserted in various segments of the upper arch: 5 screws between the lateral incisor and canine teeth, 54 miniscrews between the second premolars and first molars, and 31 screws between the first and second molars. The success rate of screws placed in different areas of the jaw did not show a significant difference. The success rate of screws located on the buccal side (46/49) was similar to those on the palatal side (37/41), and the association between the side of insertion and screw stability was not significant. Similar findings have also been reported in other studies [11, 32].

The limitations of this study were the relatively small sample size and the variability in force vector among the patients. Furthermore, observational retrospective studies are prone to selection bias, which could impact the generalizability of findings and potentially affect the differences in success rates between the two types of miniscrews. More extensive split-mouth studies are recommended to assess the primary and long-term stability of double-thread miniscrews compared to other screw types, helping to select the most suitable design for clinical practice.

Conclusions

  1. 1-

    The overall success rate of the screws inserted in the maxillary arch was 92.2% (83/90 miniscrews). The double-thread screws exhibited a significantly higher success rate compared to the single-thread design (97.8% versus 86.7%).

  2. 2-

    Factors related to patients (age and gender) and the location of insertion (area and side) did not demonstrate any significant associations with the success rate of screws in the upper jaw.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Umalkar SS, Jadhav VV, Paul P, Reche A. Modern anchorage systems in orthodontics. Cureus. 2022;14(11):e31476.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Budsabong C, Trachoo V, Pittayapat P, Chantarawaratit PO. The association between thread pitch and cortical bone thickness influences the primary stability of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a study in human cadaver palates. J World Fed Orthod. 2022;11(2):68–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Watanabe K, Mitchell B, Sakamaki T, Hirai Y, Kim DG, Deguchi T, et al. Mechanical stability of orthodontic miniscrew depends on a thread shape. J Dent Sci. 2022;17(3):1244–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gracco A, Giagnorio C, Incerti Parenti S, Alessandri Bonetti G, Siciliani G. Effects of thread shape on the pullout strength of miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(2):186–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cha JY, Hwang CJ, Kwon SH, Jung HS, Kim KM, Yu HS. Strain of bone-implant interface and insertion torque regarding different miniscrew thread designs using an artificial bone model. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37(3):268–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Manni A, Cozzani M, Tamborrino F, De Rinaldis S, Menini A. Factors influencing the stability of miniscrews. A retrospective study on 300 miniscrews. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(4):388–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sarul M, Lis J, Park HS, Rumin K. Evidence-based selection of orthodontic miniscrews, increasing their success rate in the mandibular buccal shelf. A randomized, prospective clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):414.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mashreghi A, Bardideh E, Shafaee H, Dadgarmoghaddam M. Bone-borne Maxillary Expansion and Traditional Rapid Maxillary expansion: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Mater Tech. 2019;8(4):159–68.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Khojastepour L, Naderi A. Symphysis morphology and mandibular alveolar bone thickness in patients with β-thalassemia major and different growth patterns. Dent Press J Orthod. 2022;27(2):e22205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moghaddam SF, Mohammadi A, Behroozian A. The effect of sandblasting and acid etching on survival rate of orthodontic miniscrews: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial. Prog Orthod. 2021;22(1):2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Melo AC, Andrighetto AR, Hirt SD, Bongiolo AL, Silva SU, Silva MA. Risk factors associated with the failure of miniscrews - a ten-year cross sectional study. Braz Oral Res. 2016;30(1):e124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee Y, Choi SH, Yu HS, Erenebat T, Liu J, Cha JY. Stability and success rate of dual-thread miniscrews. Angle Orthod. 2021;91(4):509–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lim SA, Cha JY, Hwang CJ. Insertion torque of orthodontic miniscrews according to changes in shape, diameter and length. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(2):234–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim YK, Kim YJ, Yun PY, Kim JW. Effects of the taper shape, dual-thread, and length on the mechanical properties of mini-implants. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(5):908–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sakamaki T, Watanabe K, Iwasa A, Deguchi T, Horiuchi S, Tanaka E. Thread shape, cortical bone thickness, and magnitude and distribution of stress caused by the loading of orthodontic miniscrews: finite element analysis. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):12367.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ye Y, Yi W, Fan S, Zhao L, Yu Y, Lu Y, et al. Effect of thread depth and thread pitch on the primary stability of miniscrews receiving a torque load: a finite element analysis. J Orofac Orthop. 2023;84(2):79–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Choi JY, Cho J, Oh SH. Effect of different surface designs on the Rotational Resistance and Stability of Orthodontic Miniscrews: A three-dimensional finite element study. Sens (Basel). 2021;21(6):1964.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Han CM, Watanabe K, Tsatalis AE, Lee D, Zheng F, Kyung HM, et al. Evaluations of miniscrew type-dependent mechanical stability. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon). 2019;69:21–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fattahi H, Ajami S, Nabavizadeh Rafsanjani A. The effects of different Miniscrew thread designs and force directions on stress distribution by 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent (Shiraz). 2015;16(4):341–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Duaibis R, Kusnoto B, Natarajan R, Zhao L, Evans C. Factors affecting stresses in cortical bone around miniscrew implants: a three-dimensional finite element study. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(5):875–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Migliorati M, Benedicenti S, Signori A, Drago S, Cirillo P, Barberis F, et al. Thread shape factor: evaluation of three different orthodontic miniscrews stability. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35(3):401–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Radwan ES, Montasser MA, Maher A. Influence of geometric design characteristics on primary stability of orthodontic miniscrews. J Orofac Orthop. 2018;79(3):191–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nenen F, Garnica N, Rojas V, Oyonarte R. Comparison of the primary stability of orthodontic miniscrews after repeated insertion cycles. Angle Orthod. 2021;91(3):336–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Migliorati M, Benedicenti S, Signori A, Drago S, Barberis F, Tournier H, et al. Miniscrew design and bone characteristics: an experimental study of primary stability. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(2):228–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Florvaag B, Kneuertz P, Lazar F, Koebke J, Zöller JE, Braumann B, et al. Biomechanical properties of orthodontic miniscrews. An in-vitro study. J Orofac Orthop. 2010;71(1):53–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Exposto CR, Oz U, Westgate PM, Huja SS. Influence of mini-screw diameter and loading conditions on static and dynamic assessments of bone-implant contact: an animal study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22(Suppl 1):96–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Topcuoglu T, Bicakci AA, Avunduk MC, Sahin Inan ZD. Evaluation of the effects of different surface configurations on stability of miniscrews. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013;2013:396091.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Luzi C, Verna C, Melsen B. Immediate loading of orthodontic mini-implants: a histomorphometric evaluation of tissue reaction. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(1):21–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Migliorati M, Drago S, Gallo F, Amorfini L, Dalessandri D, Calzolari C, et al. Immediate versus delayed loading: comparison of primary stability loss after miniscrew placement in orthodontic patients-a single-centre blinded randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(6):652–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Aly SA, Alyan D, Fayed MS, Alhammadi MS. Success rates and factors associated with failure of temporary anchorage devices: a prospective clinical trial. J Investig Clin Dent. 2018;9(3):e12331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dalessandri D, Salgarello S, Dalessandri M, Lazzaroni E, Piancino M, Paganelli C, et al. Determinants for success rates of temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: a meta-analysis (n > 50). Eur J Orthod. 2014;36(3):303–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Papageorgiou SN, Zogakis IP, Papadopoulos MA. Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(5):577–95e7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Yu J-H, Lin Y-S, Chang W-J, Chang Y-Z, Lin C-L. Mechanical effects of micro-thread orthodontic mini-screw design on artificial cortical bone. J Med Biol Eng. 2014;34(1):49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fukumoto T, Fukasawa S, Yamada K, Nakajima R, Yamaguchi M. Evaluation of the success rate of single- and dual-thread orthodontic miniscrews inserted in the palatal side of the maxillary tuberosity. J World Fed Orthod. 2022;11(3):69–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Park HS, Jeong SH, Kwon OW. Factors affecting the clinical success of screw implants used as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(1):18–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kuroda S, Sugawara Y, Deguchi T, Kyung HM, Takano-Yamamoto T. Clinical use of miniscrew implants as orthodontic anchorage: success rates and postoperative discomfort. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131(1):9–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Chen YJ, Chang HH, Huang CY, Hung HC, Lai EH, Yao CC. A retrospective analysis of the failure rate of three different orthodontic skeletal anchorage systems. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(6):768–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee SJ, Ahn SJ, Lee JW, Kim SH, Kim TW. Survival analysis of orthodontic mini-implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(2):194–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The research was not funded by a grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

    Mohsen Merati & Hassanali Ghaffari

  2. School of Dentistry, Shahed University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Fatemeh Javid

  3. Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Vakilabad Blvd, Mashhad, Iran

    Farzaneh Ahrari

Authors
  1. Mohsen Merati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hassanali Ghaffari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fatemeh Javid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Farzaneh Ahrari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MM and HG developed and designed the project, helped collect data, and edited the manuscript. FJ and FA collected and analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farzaneh Ahrari.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol received approval from the ethics committee of Shahed University. Informed consent was obtained from all patients or their parents/guardians, adhering to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Merati, M., Ghaffari, H., Javid, F. et al. Success rates of single-thread and double-thread orthodontic miniscrews in the maxillary arch. BMC Oral Health 24, 191 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-03866-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-03866-x

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us