## 3 Results  
No statistically significant difference was found at T0 between the three groups, confirming the homogeneity of the three selected samples. Descriptive statistics and statistical assessments of cephalometric variables in each treatment group before and after therapy are shown in Table 2. No statistically significant difference was noted, apart from the angle between the upper incisor and the SN and PP planes, which showed an average decrease of 3.25 and 2.55, respectively, and the angle between the lower incisors and the mandibular plane, which showed an average increase of 2.85 degrees. The one-way ANOVA (reported in Table 3) showed no statistically significant difference between the three groups. The values for the intra- and interobserver agreement (ICC) for the cephalometric measurements (reported in Table 4) were 0.970 (95% CI: 1.000-0.934; \(p\) < 0.001) and 0.956 (95% CI: 0.985-0.927; \(p\) < 0.001). Overall, the method error was considered negligible. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline  & **Description** \\ \hline SNA & Craniaxillary angle: sagittal position of the maxilla \\ \hline SNB & Craniabular angle: sagittal position of the mandible \\ \hline ANB & Relative anteroposterior position between the maxilla and the mandible \\ \hline S-N \(\wedge\) Go-Gn & Craniabular divergence \\ \hline SNP-SNA \(\wedge\) Go-Gn & Maxillomandibular divergence \\ \hline S-N \(\wedge\) SNP-SNA & Craniaxillary divergence \\ \hline N\(\hat{\text{SAr}}\) & cranial base angle \\ \hline \(\hat{\text{SAr}}\)Go & Articular angle \\ \hline Ar\(\hat{\text{Co}}\)Gn & Gonion angle \\ \hline U1 \(\wedge\) S-N & Upper incisor to the cranial plane \\ \hline U1 \(\wedge\) SNP-SNA & Upper incisor to the palatal plane \\ \hline L1 \(\wedge\) Go-Me & Lower incisor to the mandibular plane \\ \hline U1 \(\wedge\) L1 & Interincisal Angle \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Description of the considered cephalometric indexes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **RME** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SME**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Control**} \\ \hline  & **T0** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**T0**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**T0**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Independent _t_-Test**} \\ \hline  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & _p_**-Value** \\ \hline SNA & 83.52 & 4.99 & 79.75 & 4.38 & 81.73 & 6.01 & 0.14 \\ \hline SNB & 78.48 & 6.46 & 76.55 & 3.87 & 78.73 & 4.75 & 0.84 \\ \hline ANB & 6.04 & 2.94 & 3.75 & 2.17 & 3.27 & 2.18 & 0.47 \\ \hline S-N \(\wedge\) Go-Gn & 34.96 & 6.06 & 34.85 & 6.23 & 34.20 & 5.26 & 0.52 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Cephalometric measurements of the three groups reported at T0 and independent _t_-test analyses at baseline. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**RME**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SME**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ANOVA**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **_p_-Value** & **RMSE vs.** & **RME vs.** & **SME vs.** & **SME vs.** & **Control** & **SME vs.** \\ \hline \(\Delta\) SNA & \(-0.34\) & \(4.41\) & \(0.84\) & \(3.21\) & \(0.41\) & \(4.01\) & \(0.35\) & \(0.20\) & \(0.37\) & \(0.67\) \\ \hline \(\Delta\) SNB & \(0.32\) & \(2.73\) & \(0.33\) & \(3.22\) & \(0.33\) & \(3.14\) & \(0.96\) & \(0.92\) & \(0.94\) & \(0.97\) \\ \hline \(\Delta\) ANB & \(0.63\) & \(3.24\) & \(-0.52\) & \(1.84\) & \(0.02\) & \(1.63\) & \(0.21\) & \(0.19\) & \(0.11\) & \(0.76\) \\ \hline \(\Delta\) S-N \(\wedge\) Go-Gn & \(-0.33\) & \(2.72\) & \(-0.24\) & \(2.33\) & \(-0.64\) & \(2.81\) & \(0.32\) & \(0.79\) & \(0.74\) & \(0.54\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Descriptive statistics of the difference between the variables at the two time points in each group and the ANOVA test comparing the values of the three groups and the related pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni’s correction).