## 1 Introduction  
In recent years, the demand for orthodontic treatments with aesthetic appliances has increased exponentially, leading to the widespread adoption of clear aligner therapy (CAT). Clear aligners also offer several advantages over traditional fixed orthodontic appliances, including enhanced comfort, reduced frequency of emergencies, improved oral hygiene, and minimized soft tissue irritation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Numerous studies have consistently confirmed that CAT has emerged as a viable alternative to conventional orthodontic therapy. It is particularly effective in treating mild to moderate malocclusions in non-growing patients who do not require extractions [7]. However, while CAT has demonstrated efficacy in various tooth movements, certain limitations persist. According to the scoping review by [PERSON] et al. [8] and other studies [9], CAT has been shown to be particularly effective for buccolingual tipping but less predictable for rotational, intrusive, and extrusive movements. Moreover, while CAT has been shown to be effective for mild to moderate crowding resolution, the success of overbite correction still seems to be limited. Dentoalveolar expansion is another movement where CAT has demonstrated effectiveness, although it is mainly achieved through posterior tooth tipping movement [10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16]. Arch expansion can be used to resolve mild to moderate crowding, to increase the width of the smile, or to correct certain crossbites of dentoalveolar origin [17; 18; 19; 20]. The systematic review by [PERSON] et al. [21] on the clinical outcome of arch expansion with CAT concluded that in the maxilla, the expansion rate decreases from the anterior to the posterior, with the highest efficacy observed in the premolar area. Although predictability is reasonable for expansion movements, published data indicate that arch expansion is not completely predictable. Despite variations in the methods used to quantify the predictability of expansion movement among the published papers, it ranges from 65.2% (for the maxillary second molar crown) [10] to 93.53% (for the maxillary first premolar) [14]. To address this limitation, overcorrection of movements is widely recommended at the virtual planning stage [10; 13; 15; 21]. However, some patients may still require case refinement, mid-course correction, or conversion to fixed appliances before the end of treatment [22]. Additionally, some authors consider that CAT might not be as effective as braces in increasing the transverse dimension [23; 24; 25]. In this study, a novel treatment modality, Geniova Technologies(tm) (GT) (developed by Geniova Technologies, SL, Madrid, Spain), which combines CAT and braces, is tested with the aim of maintaining the advantages of both devices while reducing their limitations. Specifically, GT can be described as a hybrid aligner that includes virtual brackets and nickel-titanium archwires and combines principles of conventional orthodontics fixed appliances with the characteristics of CAT. GT comprises components and properties that differ from those of a conventional clear aligner, despite operating in a similar manner and involving patient interaction. For this study, the GT hybrid aligner system was designed to facilitate anterior denoalveolar expansion, primarily targeting the premolar and canine regions. Unlike conventional clear aligners (CA), which rely on the continuous distribution of force across the dental arch through flexible polymer materials, the GT system introduces a segmented aligner design that integrates nickel-titanium (NiTi) archwires. These archwires generate consistent and sustained forces through their interaction with virtual brackets, which are digitally customized to optimize the biomechanical requirements of each movement. This approach not only creates the necessary space for mild to moderate crowding resolution but also improves buccal corridor aesthetics through controlled buccal tipping.