Nowadays, aligners represent a possible therapeutical approach that combines both esthetic and function in order to address dental malocclusion. However, they require a significant level of compliance from the patient. According to the manufacturer, at least 22 h of wearing a day is demanded to reach the optimal therapeutical level; hence, aligners can only be removed during meals. Patients’ compliance might increase and the duration of the treatment might decrease if they were allowed to eat with aligners on. The idea of patients keeping the aligners on during meals has been contemplated, not only to favor patients’ compliance but also treatment effectiveness. This study aims to assess the degree of chewing difficulty that aligners cause when eating certain kinds of food and the quantity of residue left. Material and Methods: A questionnaire titled “Questionnaire for the Assessment of Masticatory Function with Aligners” was administered using Google Forms to 240 patients in treatment with clear aligners. The survey was validated through the reliability test using the test–retest method. This method had a higher correlation coefficient of 0.9 across all items (with a cutoff of 0.8) with statistical significance, and an excellent internal correlation coefficient (α > 0.9). The statistical analysis performed consisted of descriptive analysis, frequencies, percentages, Pearson’s correlation test and Friedman’s test. Results: Pearson’s test showed a statistically significant correlation between all items except between meat or clams and yogurt or ice cream and with mozzarella or soft cheese regarding food chewing difficulties. Pearson’s test showed a statistically significant correlation between all items regarding food residues. A total of 69.2% of the cohort reported some movements of aligners during mastication. In total, 88.3% of them affirmed not to have perceived deformations or breakage of aligners during chewing. Furthermore, 79.2% of them declared that they would continue to eat if eating with aligners was proven to speed up treatment. Conclusions: Wearing clear aligners while chewing foods such as yogurt, ice cream, soft cheese, bread, rice, etc., can be possible and can help shorten the duration of orthodontic treatment, benefiting both the patient and the orthodontist. However, further research using qualitative methods is needed to understand the barriers and facilitators to chewing food with aligners.

An implant’s thread design plays a key role in enhancing primary stability by optimising the distribution of loading forces and biomechanical structural interlocking. An increase in bone-to-implant contact (BIC) surface availability affects osseointegration timing and leads to different biomechanical behaviours. To assess their theoretical impacts on osseointegration functionality, this study aims to analyse and compare the surface areas of two different thread designs: progressive knife-edge and V-shaped metric ISO ones. Six implant models are virtually created, with progressive knife-edge threads, non-self-tapping ISO threads, and ISO threads with tapping areas, considering two arbitrary diameters (3.8 mm and 4.6 mm). For both diameters, the models also have identical lengths (9.5 mm) and external outlines. The total, superior half, and inferior half external surface areas are measured using a digital tool (SolidWorks 2023 SP 5.0, Dassault Systèmes, Waltham, MA, USA). Then, the percentage difference in external surface area (ΔESA) is calculated. A greater ΔESA is found in the knife-edge design compared to the ISO thread self-tapping implants for the 4.6 mm diameter (ΔESA = +9.9%). However, for the 3.8 mm diameter, the ΔESA is −1.5% in favour of the ISO self-tapping model. Considering the apical half of the models, the ΔESA is always greater in the knife-edge models, varying from +9.3% to +23.5%. Implants with progressive knife-edge threads offer a significantly larger external surface area than those with ISO threads for the 4.6 mm rather than the 3.8 mm diameter. Considering the apical halves of the implants, the tapping area negatively affects the ΔESA, as well as the ISO thread design. Future research is needed to investigate whether the inspected surface area differences correspond to significant primary and secondary stability variations.