## 3 Results
### Intergroup Comparisons  
In the intergroup comparisons, the RS group showed a larger arch width than the CAs subjects after therapy. This result was evidenced by statistically significant increases in smile width (1.36 mm) and smile index (0.86 ratio), and a reduction in buccal corridor (\(-\)2.87 ratio, \(-\)2.42 mm) in the RS group with respect to the CAs group. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**RS Intragroup Comparison**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**CA Intragroup Comparison**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Intergroup Comparison**} \\ \cline{2-11}
**Variable** & **T1** & **T2** & **Mean** & **Dilinear** & **T1** & **Mean** & **Mean** & **Dilinear** & **Mean** & **Mean** & **Mean** & **Difference** & **_p_ Value** \\ \hline Smile width & 43.75 (4.33) & 48.98 (3.78) & 5.23 & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) & 44.2 (4.67) & 47.62 (3.03) & 3.42 & 0.04 \({}^{\star}\) & 1.36 & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline Lip symmetry & 1.07 (0.02) & 1.15 (0.21) & 0.08 & 0.84 & 1.07 (0.09) & 1.16 (0.27) & 0.09 & 0.85 & \(-\)0.01 & 0.82 \\ \hline Smile index (ratio) & 5.09 (0.87) & 5.89 (1.33) & 0.80 & 0.03 \({}^{\star}\) & 5.56 (0.76) & 5.03 (1.60) & 0.53 & 0.04 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.86 & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline Smile cant (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 1.18 (0.27) & 1.12 (0.11) & \(-\)0.06 & 0.91 & 1.12 (0.13) & 0.51 (0.18) & \(-\)0.61 & 0.01 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.61 & 0.01 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline Buccal corridor (ratio) & 23.32 (4.22) & 16.97 (5.01) & \(-\)6.35 & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) & 22.86 (4.67) & 19.84 (4.92) & \(-\)3.02 & 0.04 \({}^{\star}\) & \(-\)2.87 & 0.03 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline Buccal corridor (mm) & 8.11 (0.56) & 4.58 (0.63) & \(-\)3.53 & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) & 8.48 (0.39) & 7.00 (0.88) & \(-\)1.48 & 0.04 \({}^{\star}\) & \(-\)2.42 & 0.03 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline Upper lip & 6.02 (1.22) & 5.66 (1.55) & \(-\)0.36 & 0.40 & 6.07 (1.94) & 5.79 (1.57) & \(-\)0.28 & 0.52 & \(-\)0.13 & 0.53 \\ thickness (mm) & 8.12 (1.03) & 8.37 (1.32) & 0.25 & 0.64 & 8.39 (1.18) & 8.67 (1.39) & 0.28 & 0.68 & \(-\)0.30 & 0.38 \\ \hline Inciger gingival & 2.82 (1.0) & 3.62 (0.89) & 0.80 & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) & 2.67 (0.87) & 2.22 (0.26) & \(-\)0.45 & 0.04 \({}^{\star}\) & 1.40 & 0.01 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline Maximillary dental & 0.94 (0.02) & 1.15 (0.05) & 0.21 & 0.05 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.98 (0.19) & 0.36 (0.09) & \(-\)0.62 & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.79 & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline Online display (mm) & 1.52 (0.85) & 1.79 (1.47) & 0.27 & 0.06 & 1.34 (0.66) & 0.93 (1.32) & \(-\)0.41 & 0.04 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.86 & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline C angulation (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 76.32 (7.55) & 74.8 (6.98) & \(-\)1.52 & 0.09 & 77.43 (8.97) & 81 (6.08) & 3.57 & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) & \(-\)6.20 & 0.03 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline Maximillary incisor & 4.62 (2.01) & 3.11 (3.89) & \(-\)1.51 & 0.03 \({}^{\star}\) & 4.73 (2.33) & 4.98 (3.81) & 0.25 & 0.09 & \(-\)1.87 & 0.04 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline Maximillary incision (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 106.23 & 102.9 (8.00) & \(-\)3.33 & 0.05 \({}^{\star}\) & 10.652 & 109.32 & \(-\)0.75 & 0.04 \({}^{\star}\) & \(-\)6.42 & 0.04 \({}^{\star}\) \\ inclination (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 88 (5.45) & 86.68 (5.66) & \(-\)1.32 & 0.09 & 87.23 (4.73) & 88.75 (5.78) & 1.52 & 0.09 & \(-\)2.07 & 0.07 \\ \hline OVJ (mm) & 3.53 (2.25) & 1.98 (2.48) & \(-\)1.55 & 0.01 \({}^{\star}\) & 3.67 (2.39) & 3.14 (2.41) & \(-\)0.53 & 0.06 & \(-\)1.16 & 0.01 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline OVB (mm) & 2.98 (1.25) & 3.49 (1.95) & 0.51 & 0.04 \({}^{\star}\) & 3.05 (1.67) & 1.51 (2.86) & \(-\)1.54 & 0.01 \({}^{\star}\) & 1.98 & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p\) = 0.05; SD = standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Intragroup and intergroup comparison for the two analyzed groups. The differences in incisor position after treatment, as already underlined in the intragroup comparisons, were statistically supported in the intergroup comparison.