Is motor‐driven insertion of orthodontic miniscrews more advantageous than manual insertion? A micro‐CT evaluation of bone miniscrew contact surface area and cortical microcracks in rabbits

Abstract

AbstractAimThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the bone–miniscrew contact surface area (BMC) and the cortical bone microcracks (CM) resulting from manual (hand‐driven) and automated (motor‐driven) orthodontic miniscrew (OM) insertion methods.MethodsThirty‐three OM were inserted in the femurs of nine New Zealand rabbits using manual (n = 16) and automated (n = 17) insertions. After euthanizing the rabbits, bone blocks, each including one OM, were sawed. Micro‐CT scanning was performed, and data analysis included reconstruction, binarization and quantification of morphometric parameters of BMC and the number and length of CM. Means and standard deviations for complete BMC, complete BMC proportion, cortical BMC, cortical BMC proportion, and length and number of CM were calculated. Mixed model analysis was used to adjust for more than one sample/CM per animal. A paired t‐test was used to compare the number of CM between the two groups.ResultsCompared to the automated insertion, manually inserted miniscrews had significantly lower complete BMC (7.54 ± 1.80 mm2 vs. 11.99 ± 3.64 mm2), cortical BMC (5.91 ± 1.48 mm2 vs. 8.48 ± 1.90 mm2) and cortical BMC proportion (79.44 ± 5.84% vs. 87.94 ± 3.66%). However, it was not statistically significant in complete BMC proportion (p = .052). The automated insertion also resulted in a significantly lower mean number of CM than the manual method (p = .012). However, the length of the cracks was shorter in the manual group but with no significant difference (p = 0.256).ConclusionMotor‐driven OM insertion results in superior BMC and reduction in the number of CM, which may lead to better miniscrew stability.