Class II malocclusion is one of the most frequent treatment problems facing orthodontists, representing nearly one third of all malocclusions. If the problem is caused by a dental factor several treatment options have been attempted including distalization of the maxillary first molar. In 2004 a new appliance was introduced by Luis Carrière carrying his name, called the Carrière Motion appliance10. However, so far no RCT in the orthodontic literature evaluated the use of this applianceThe aim of this study was to evaluate anchorage control using miniscrewsvs Essix appliance in treatment of post-pubertal patients with Class II malocclusion using Carrière Motion appliance. A randomized clinical trial was conducted consisting of 24 participants with age range between 14-30 years old. The participants were divided equally into two groups, the first group consisted of 12 patients who were treated using the Carrière Motion appliance and 2 miniscrews inserted between the first mandibular molar and second premolar bilaterally. The second group consisted also of 12 patients who were treated using the Carrière Motion appliance and an Essix appliance in the lower arch. The treatment effects were evaluated radiographically using pre and post-distalization CBCT images after either Class I molar relation has been reached or an observation period of 9 months has elapsed. A three-dimensional cephalometric analysis was performed on the reconstructed images from the CBCTs to study the treatment changes and compare the two means of anchorage.The collected data were then statistically analyzed for treatment changes within each group and comparison of the difference for the treatment changes between the two means of anchorage.On the basis of the results obtained from the present study, the following conclusions could be drawn:1.The Carrière Motion appliance was able to correct Class II molar relation into a Class I relation in both groups.2.The miniscrews’ anchorage group showed reduced amounts of anchorage loss expressed in the mandibular incisors and second molar compared to those experienced with the Essix appliance group.3.The miniscrews’ anchorage group produced more linear distal movement of the maxillary first molar compared to the Essix appliance group.4.Minimal distal tipping of the maxillary first molar was observed in both groups.5.No skeletal changes occurred in either group, except for an increase in the lower facial height and anterior facial height.6.The upper and lower lip followed the movements of the upper and lower incisors in both groups.