## 5 Conclusions  
The purpose of this study was to quantify the treatment effects and post-treatment stability of total arch distalization with TADs in adults, and the outcomes were as follows:  
1. The maxillary incisor (2.68 \(\pm\) 2.19 mm), first molar (2.46 \(\pm\) 1.97 mm) and second molar (2.60 \(\pm\) 2.52 mm) were significantly distalized after treatment (\(p\) < 0.001). Intrusion of the maxillary first (0.92 \(\pm\) 1.16 mm) and second molars (0.89 \(\pm\) 1.17 mm) was also observed after the treatment (\(p\) < 0.01), which presumably caused a decrease in the distance from ANS to Me. The mandibular first molar (2.57 \(\pm\) 2.13 mm, \(p\) < 0.01) and second molar (2.24 \(\pm\) 2.35 mm, \(p\) < 0.05) were significantly distalized after treatment. 2. During the retention period, significant mesial movement of the maxillary first molar (0.52 \(\pm\) 0.99 mm) and second molar (0.65 \(\pm\) 0.92 mm) was observed (\(p\) < 0.05); however, intrusion was kept relatively stable. Mesial movement of the mandibular arch was also observed but was not statistically significant during the retention period. There were no changes in skeletal measurements after distalization except the decrease in distance from ANS to Me and PTV to B. * The upper and lower lip were retracted by 0.89 \(\pm\) 1.19 mm (_p_ < 0.001) and 1.06 \(\pm\) 1.91 mm (_p_ < 0.05), respectively, and there was no significant relapse during the retention period. * The maxillary intercanine and intermid width increased by 1.52 \(\pm\) 1.63 mm (_p_ < 0.001) and 0.93 \(\pm\) 1.21 mm (_p_ < 0.01), respectively, on average, after the treatment. The arch width was relatively stable without significant changes during the retention period. Distal-in rotation of the molars was observed after the treatment, and there were no significant changes during the retention period
* Post-treatment changes of distalized teeth were correlated with the amount of distalization during treatment but not with the initial skeletal pattern and retention period. It was concluded that even though there was a little relapse in the anteroposterior position of the maxillary and mandibular teeth during retention, there was no obvious relapse in facial profile. Therefore, the total arch distalization can be used in patients with a moderate amount of arch length discrepancy effectively with stable retention. Conceptualization, B-J.S. and H.-S.Y. ; methodology, H.-S.Y. ; software, B.-J.S. ; validation, K.-J.L., J.-Y.C., J.-S.L. and S.-S.M. ; formal analysis, H.-S.Y. ; investigation, B.-J.S. ; resources, H.-S.Y. ; data curation, B.-J.S. ; writing--original draft preparation, B.-J.S. ; writing--review and editing, H.-S.Y. ; visualization, B.-J.S. ; supervision, H.-S.Y. ; project administration, H.-S.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research received no external funding. The Yonsei Dental Hospital institutional review board (CRNo: 2-2020-0013) approved this study. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy issue. The authors declare no conflict of interest. References  
References  
+++ ==WARNING: Truncated because of repetitions==
erences  
++  
* _[PERSON] et al. (2001)_ [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Posttreatment evaluation of the distal jet appliance. _[PERSON]. Dentofac. Orthop._**2001**, _120_, 178-185. [CrossRef]
* _[PERSON] et al. (2011)_ [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Total distalization of the maxillary arch in a patient with skeletal Class II malocclusion. _Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop._**2011**, _139_, 823-833. [CrossRef]
* _[PERSON] et al. (2006)_ [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] En-masse distalization with miniscrew anchorage in Class II nonextraction treatment. _J. Clin. Orthod._**2006**, _40_, 472-476. * _[PERSON] et al.