ObjectiveThis study aimed to (1) evaluate the effects of maxillary second and third molar eruption status on the distalization of first molars with a modified palatal anchorage plate (MPAP), and (2) compare the results to the outcomes of the use of a pendulum and that of a headgear using three-dimensional finite element analysis.MethodsThree eruption stages were established: an erupting second molar at the cervical one-third of the first molar root (Stage 1), a fully erupted second molar (Stage 2), and an erupting third molar at the cervical one-third of the second molar root (Stage 3). Retraction forces were applied via three anchorage appliance models: an MPAP with bracket and archwire, a bone-anchored pendulum appliance, and cervical-pull headgear.ResultsAn MPAP showed greater root movement of the first molar than crown movement, and this was more noticeable in Stages 2 and 3. With the other devices, the first molar showed distal tipping. Transversely, the first molar had mesial-out rotation with headgear and mesial-in rotation with the other devices. Vertically, the first molar was intruded with an MPAP, and extruded with the other appliances.ConclusionsThe second molar eruption stage had an effect on molar distalization, but the third molar follicle had no effect. The application of an MPAP may be an effective treatment option for maxillary molar distalization.

Objective: To evaluate and compare skeletal effects and the amount of molar distalization in maxilla using modified palatal anchorage plate (MPAP) vs headgear appliances in adolescent patients. Materials and Methods: Pre-and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of 45 Class II malocclusion patients were analyzed; 24 were treated with MPAP appliances (age, 12.4 years) and 21 with headgear (age, 12.1 years). Fixed orthodontic treatment started with the distalization process in both groups. Thirty-two variables were measured and compared between both groups using multivariate analysis of covariates. Results: There was no significant main effect of the appliance type on the treatment results (P 5 .063). Also, there was no significant main effect of the appliance type on both pre-and posttreatment comparisons (P 5 .0198 and .135, respectively). The MPAP and headgear groups showed significant distalization of maxillary first molars (3.06 6 0.54 mm and 1.8 6 0.58 mm, respectively; P , .001). Sagittal skeletal maxillomandibular differences were improved after treatment (P , .001), with no significant differences between the two groups. No significant difference in treatment duration was found between the groups. Conclusions: The MPAP showed a significant skeletal effect on the maxilla. Both MPAP and headgear resulted in distalization of maxillary first molars. Therefore, it is recommended that clinicians consider the application of MPAP, especially in noncompliant Class II patients. (Angle Orthod. 2015;85:657-664.)

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the dental and skeletal effects of the modified C-palatal plate (MCPP) for total arch distalization in adult patients with Class II malocclusion and compare the findings with those of cervical pull headgear.MethodsThe study sample consisted of the lateral cephalograms of 44 adult patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, including 22 who received treatment with MCPP (age, 24.7 ± 7.7 years) and 22 who received treatment with cervical pull headgear (age, 23.0 ± 7.7 years). Pre- (T1) and post-treatment (T2) cephalograms were analyzed for 24 linear and angular measurements. Multivariate analysis of variance was performed to evaluate the changes after treatment in each group and differences in treatment effects between the two groups.ResultsThe mean amount of distalization at the crown and root levels of the maxillary first molar and the amount of distal tipping was 4.2 mm, 3.5 mm, and 3.9° in the MCPP group, and 2.3 mm, 0.6 mm, and 8.6° in the headgear group, respectively. In addition, intrusion by 2.5 mm was observed in the MCPP group. In both groups, the distal movement of the upper lip and the increase in the nasolabial angle were statistically significant (p < 0.001). However, none of the skeletal and soft tissue variables exhibited significant differences between the two groups.ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that MCPP is an effective treatment modality for total arch distalization in adults.