## 1 Introduction  
According to [PERSON] [1], normal occlusion is characterized by the arrangement of the upper and lower teeth in a smooth curve that is in harmonious alignment. [PERSON] identified the first molars as the most reliable reference points for classification, basing sagittal relationships on their positions. Class II malocclusion is defined as the condition where the lower first molar is positioned more distally relative to the upper first molar [1]. In [PERSON]'s approach [2], the treatment of Class II malocclusions is guided by fundamental principles: the severity of the malocclusion, the patient's growth stage, and the etiology of the condition. Treatment options include growth modification, orthognathic surgery, and camouflage therapy. Contemporary orthodontic treatment approaches for sagittal discrepancies in the dental arches, particularly Class II malocclusions, prioritize noninvasive orthodontic methods that can be executed without the necessity for permanent tooth extractions [3]. In this regard, the utilization of various orthodontic appliances through different methods that diminish or even eliminate the need for tooth extractions is a noteworthy phenomenon [4]. Camouflage treatment is a therapeutic approach aimed at achieving acceptable occlusion and aesthetic appearance without inducing skeletal changes in the patient. This treatment can be performed with or without tooth extraction [5]. In non-extraction camouflage treatments, distalization of the molars can be employed to create the necessary space [5]. Maxillary molar distalization (MMD) has been recognized as an alternative non-extraction treatment option in cases of mild to moderate sagittal discrepancies [6; 7]. Although the intraoral appliances traditionally used for MMD eliminate the need for patient compliance, they may also lead to undesirable effects such as distal tipping, crown rotation, and anchorage loss, resulting in mesial movement of the premolars, flaring of the maxillary incisors, and increased overjet [8]. It has been reported that the use of skeletal temporary anchorage devices (TADs) during MMD provides resistance to reactive forces [9] and that achieving direct anchorage with these devices eliminates the adverse effects, such as mesial tipping and anterior tooth proclination, caused by the loss of anchorage due to the reactive forces generated during MMD [6; 10]. Miniscrews, when used as TADs, have gained widespread acceptance due to their ease of placement and removal, their ability to be loaded immediately, and their cost-effectiveness [11]. Although numerous studies have reported the efficacy of TADs, which can be placed in interradicular alveolar areas such as buccal or palatal regions or in extra-radicular areas such as the infrazygomatic region, providing three-dimensional tooth movement with minimal anchorage loss, clinical evidence regarding the treatment effects of these mechanics remains unclear [12; 13]. Consequently, conventional intraoral molar distalization appliances such as the Distal Jet [14] and pendulum [15], which provide effective distalization while replacing headgear that requires patient compliance, raise aesthetic concerns, and have been used for many years [13; 16], continue to be utilized for the purpose of distalizing maxillary molars. A review of the literature reveals that, in response to increasing aesthetic demands and the necessity for effective and stable outcomes, various intraoral molar distalization appliances have evolved over time [17; 18], while technological advancements have further introduced the use of clear aligners produced through three-dimensional printing for distalization [19], thereby providing orthodontists with a wide array of treatment options for achieving molar distalization. To the best of our knowledge, there is no study in the literature that comprehensively addresses the numerous MMD appliances that have been developed with various biomechanical design approaches and reported using different application methods.