## 3 Results
### Bone Thickness  
Tables 3-5 present differences in the mean bone thickness at the level of 12 mm, 14 mm, and 16 mm depending on the sagittal location of the mini-implant. At the height of 12 mm  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sex**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**N**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Age**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\)**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-8}  & & **Mean** & & & & & & & \\ \hline Female & 50 & 28.70 & 13.83 & 25 & 12 & 65 & 16.5 & 38.75 & \(p\) = 0.654 \\ Male & 50 & 28.92 & 11.95 & 27 & 13 & 63 & 18.0 & 36.75 & \\ Total & 100 & 28.81 & 12.86 & 25 & 12 & 65 & 18.0 & 38.00 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \(p\)—Mann-Whitney test, SD—standard deviation, Q1—lower quartile, Q3—upper quartile.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Patients characteristics.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & **Measurement 1** & **Measurement 2** & **ICC** & **95\% CI** & **Agreement** & **Agreement** \\  & **(Mean \(\pm\) SD)** & **(Mean \(\pm\) SD)** & & & & **([PERSON])** & **([PERSON] and Li)** \\ \hline M1 & 1.86 \(\pm\) 2.29 & 1.88 \(\pm\) 2.42 & 0.995 & 0.980 & 0.999 & Excellent & Excellent \\ M2 & 2.84 \(\pm\) 2.77 & 2.89 \(\pm\) 2.84 & 0.995 & 0.983 & 0.999 & Excellent & Excellent \\ M3 & 2.37 \(\pm\) 2.13 & 2.79 \(\pm\) 1.98 & 0.895 & 0.646 & 0.973 & Excellent & Good \\ D1 & 4.67 \(\pm\) 3.15 & 4.48 \(\pm\) 3.25 & 0.987 & 0.950 & 0.997 & Excellent & Excellent \\ D2 & 3.94 \(\pm\) 2.29 & 3.87 \(\pm\) 2.31 & 0.991 & 0.965 & 0.998 & Excellent & Excellent \\ D3 & 2.91 \(\pm\) 1.65 & 2.86 \(\pm\) 1.61 & 0.959 & 0.853 & 0.989 & Excellent & Excellent \\ I1 & 6.14 \(\pm\) 1.34 & 6.01 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 0.695 & 0.189 & 0.913 & Good & Fair \\ I2 & 5.24 \(\pm\) 1.91 & 5.47 \(\pm\) 2.14 & 0.911 & 0.700 & 0.977 & Excellent & Excellent \\ I3 & 4.52 \(\pm\) 1.74 & 4.66 \(\pm\) 1.7 & 0.974 & 0.904 & 0.993 & Excellent & Excellent \\ Height of the palate & 20.4 \(\pm\) 2.53 & 20.42 \(\pm\) 2.82 & 0.973 & 0.903 & 0.993 & Excellent & Excellent \\ Width of the palate & 33.91 \(\pm\) 2.62 & 33.72 \(\pm\) 2.75 & 0.965 & 0.873 & 0.991 & Excellent & Excellent \\ Palatal height index & 60.15 \(\pm\) 5.83 & 60.53 \(\pm\) 6.79 & 0.960 & 0.856 & 0.990 & Excellent & Excellent \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Intra-examiner error calculation.  
and 14 mm, bone layer was the thickest in the interdental space between the first and the second molar (6.03 \(\pm\) 2.64 mm and 4.74 \(\pm\) 2.17 mm, respectively) followed by the area of the distal root of the first molar (3.71 \(\pm\) 2.76 mm and 3.11 \(\pm\) 2.35 mm). In the case of the measurements performed at the height of 16 mm, the difference was statistically insignificant.  
Tables 6-8 and Figure 3 present differences in bone thickness depending on the vertical location of the mini-implant. In the case of the area of the mesial root of the first molar, there was no significant difference in the bone thickness at different levels. In the case of the area of distal root and interdental space, the greatest values of bone thickness were recorded at the level of 12 mm from the occlusal plane (3.71 \(\pm\) 2.76 mm and 6.03 \(\pm\) 2.64 mm, respectively) and with the growing distance from the occlusal plane, the bone thickness presented a decreasing trend.