## 4 Discussion  
This work evaluated the efficacy and the predictability of the virtual setup of a novel treatment modality (GT) for dentoalveolar arch expansion, compared to conventional CA. The GT group had a lower average treatment duration and used fewer aligners compared \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{GT} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{CA} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**95\%CI**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\) **tisj**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}
**Outcome** & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean GT**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SD GT**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean CA**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SD CA**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean Diff**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Lower**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Upper**} \\ \hline PredicAccur\%,13,23,cusp & 82.02 & 15.28 & 60.59 & 15.95 & 21.43 & -23.28 & 66.14 & 0.338 \\ PredicAccur\%,14,24,cusp & 84.13 & 14.57 & 58.04 & 5.72 & 26.10 & \(-\)6.17 & 58.37 & 0.108 \\ PredicAccur\%,15,25,cusp & 91.08 & 23.12 & 55.89 & 7.92 & 35.19 & -15.32 & 85.71 & 0.163 \\ PredicAccur\%,13,23,cer & 95.99 & 32.36 & 43.43 & 5.63 & 52.55 & -15.92 & 121.02 & 0.125 \\ PredicAccur\%,14,24,cerv & 74.91 & 13.40 & 58.27 & 9.85 & 16.64 & \(-\)17.34 & 50.63 & 0.327 \\ PredicAccur\%,15,25,cerv & 77.49 & 21.06 & 49.29 & 6.91 & 28.20 & -17.65 & 74.05 & 0.216 \\ PredicAccur\%,34,43,cup & 49.19 & 35.36 & 61.32 & 10.10 & \(-\)12.14 & \(-\)89.97 & 65.70 & 0.746 \\ PredicAccur\%,34,44,cusp & 61.26 & 17.80 & 78.05 & 8.67 & \(-\)16.78 & \(-\)54.10 & 20.53 & 0.367 \\ PredicAccur\%,35,45,cusp & 85.64 & 28.37 & 76.75 & 9.11 & 8.89 & \(-\)54.37 & 27.15 & 0.735 \\ PredicAccur\%,35,45,cusp & 42.41 & 26.49 & 46.87 & 12.85 & \(-\)4.46 & \(-\)60.50 & 51.59 & 0.872 \\ PredicAccur\%,34,44,cerv & 77.41 & 11.95 & 83.64 & 9.07 & \(-\)6.23 & \(-\)36.25 & 23.80 & 0.676 \\ PredicAccur\%,35,45,cerv & 56.58 & 24.14 & 78.33 & 23.73 & \(-\)21.75 & \(-\)91.90 & 48.40 & 0.533 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparisons between groups based on the achieved percentage relative to the planned expansion (PredicAccur%). GT: Geniova; CA: clear aligner; SD: Standard deviation; Diff: difference; CI: confidence interval; sig: significance; 13_23: upper amines; 14_24: upper first premolars; 15_25: upper second premolars; 33_43: lower amines; 34_44: lower first premolars; 35_55: lower second premolars; cusp: cuspid level; cerv: cervical level. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**GT**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CA**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**95\%CI**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\) **tisj**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}
**Outcome** & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean GT**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SD GT**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean CA**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SD CA**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Upper**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Lower**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Lower**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}
**T0\%,13,23,cusp** & 5.19 & 7.34 & 3.32 & 3.54 & \(-\)1.88 & 1.86 & \(-\)5.61 & 0.312 \\  & 7.39 & 5.64 & 6.93 & 3.72 & \(-\)0.46 & 2.66 & \(-\)3.58 & 0.766 \\  & 7.55 & 4.23 & 6.07 & 4.27 & 0.28 & 3.04 & \(-\)2.48 & 0.839 \\  & 4.05 & 5.80 & 4.45 & 3.84 & 0.40 & 3.55 & \(-\)2.75 & 0.801 \\  & 6.68 & 5.38 & 7.30 & 3.76 & 0.62 & 3.64 & \(-\)2.41 & 0.682 \\  & 4.63 & 3.92 & 5.44 & 4.49 & 0.81 & 3.54 & \(-\)1.92 & 0.553 \\  & 4.81 & 6.63 & 0.87 & 5.29 & \(-\)3.93 & 0.16 & \(-\)8.03 & 0.699 \\  & 5.79 & 7.38 & 7.83 & 5.95 & 2.04 & 6.62 & \(-\)2.54 & 0.372 \\  & 5.44 & 4.81 & 8.56 & 6.65 & 3.12 & 7.25 & \(-\)1.01 & 0.133 \\  & 5.43 & 5.26 & 3.63 & 5.61 & 1.18 & 4.98 & \(-\)2.61 & 0.530 \\  & 4.94 & 5.47 & 7.93 & 5.31 & 2.99 & 6.73 & \(-\)0.75 & 0.113 \\  & 4.02 & 4.10 & 7.43 & 6.53 & 3.41 & 7.32 & \(-\)0.50 & 0.085 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparisons between groups based on the percentage increase of the initial width (T0%) achieved with the treatment.