# Dento-Skeletal Class III Treatment with Mixed Anchored Palatal Expander: A Systematic Review
## 3 Results
### Dentalveolar Effects  
[PERSON] et al. [4] and [PERSON] et al. [15] found a significant proclination of the maxillary incisors (UI-SN +2.98 \(\pm\) 2.71\({}^{\circ}\), \(p\) < 0.01) and a retroclination of the mandibular incisors (LI-MP \(-\)3.2 \(\pm\) 3.4\({}^{\circ}\), \(p\) < 0.05). [PERSON] et al. [49] documented that the maxillary molar had slight extrusion (U6 vert PP 0.42 mm) and mesialization (U6 mesialization 0.87 mm). The average forward displacement of the incisors was 3.62 mm (Pr-VertT), and their retroclination was 2.26\({}^{\circ}\) with respect to the palatal plane (U1-PP), according to [PERSON] et al. [49]. [PERSON] et al. [29] documented only a mesial migration of the maxillary incisors. The right first molar migrated 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.6 mm mesially and the left one 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.2 mm. In addition, [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al. [4,15] recorded a significant improvement in the overjet: 5.63 \(\pm\) 1.36 mm (\(p\) < 0.001). Both the manuscripts of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [29,49] did not report the values of OVJ and OVB. [PERSON] et al. [51] recorded a significant improvement in the OVJ and molar relationship (3.2 mm and -3.1 mm, respectively) in the treatment group, but no significant differences between the treatment group and control group (untreated Class III subjects) could be found in OVB (\(-\)0.2 mm) or inclination of the maxillary (U1-PP: \(-\)0.5\({}^{\circ}\)) and mandibular incisors (L1-MP: \(-\)1.7\({}^{\circ}\)). [PERSON] et al. [50] did not analyze the dentoalveolar effects of the hybrid hyrax but only the skeletal effects by pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalosporers of the patients. [PERSON] et al. [55] referred a major proclination of the maxillary incisors in the FM group in comparison to the FM + MS group (FM group: 4.6 \(\pm\) 4.5\({}^{\circ}\); FM + MS group: \(-\)0.4 \(\pm\) 4.2\({}^{\circ}\); \(p<\) 0.01), due to the greater improvement of the skeletal relationship in patients treated with palatal anchorage. [PERSON] et al. [54] found significant and greater change in OVJ in the tooth-borne group (5.5) compared to the bone-anchored group (3.4 mm, \(p<\) 0.001). This is due to the tooth-borne group having more forward migration of the maxillary incisors (OLp-ls 2.12 vs. 0.87 mm, \(p<\) 0.05). Maximilary incisors presented a significantly greater downward movement and palatal inclination in the bone-anchored group (Is-NL 1.34 mm, Is-SNL \(-\)4.42\({}^{\circ}\)) compared to the tooth-borne group (\(-\)0.55 mm, \(-\)0.19\({}^{\circ}\), \(p<\) 0.05). Furthermore, the tooth-borne protraction facemask group had a significant and bigger change in molar relationship (2.7 mm) than the bone-anchored group (1.1 mm, \(p<\) 0.05), which was due to a greater differential movement of maxillary and mandibular molars in the tooth-borne group. [PERSON] et al. [53] found no statistically significant difference in upper incisor proclination, space loss for the canines and mesial migration of the molars between the study groups. The majority of the overjet correction (FM group 3.51 mm, ME group 3.06 mm) was attributable to skeletal effects rather than dentoalveolar compensation.