This is an interesting question. Kudos for something unique!

I know speculation is generally discouraged in this subreddit, but as a specialist in Ming China (Ph.D. candidate), I don't know of any published academic works that consider this topic.

Judging from 1) my knowledge of the Ming imperial lineage, and 2) my generalist knowledge of other eras of Chinese history, I would have to credit the advanced bureaucratic/semi-meritocratic government systems that most Chinese dynasties relied upon to manage a vast empire. In a longue duree sense, China's civil bureaucracies tended to divest power from the monarchy and invest it into high-level bureaucrats, which reduced the emperor's actual power and importance. Simply put, there was rarely a good reason to remove the emperor and place an entirely new lineage on the throne.

In a very broad sense, Confucian ideals of government established during the Warring States and Qin/Han eras tied effective government to the proper conduct of the ruler, as well as the proper maintenance of relationships between superior and inferior. This included the relationship between emperor and subject. Removing the imperial lineage constituted a fundamental breach of this relationship, and was only justifiable if it was morally right to remove the old order altogether. Thus, even though the imperial lineage of a "dynasty" frequently lost informal authority over the course of a particular dynasty (i.e. Han, Tang, Ming, etc.), the moral-bureaucratic systems in place had a vested interest in maintaining the lineage itself.