## 4 Discussion  
The statistically significant value of the posterior palatal height resulting from this study indicates that the Class II palatal morphology is characterized by a deeper palatine vault than Class I. A similar result was obtained from the analysis conducted by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [16], which compared different types of sagittal malocclusions and vertical divergence patients. They also found a depth difference, but at the anterior level: the palatal depth at the canine depth was significantly greater in Class II, Division 2, than in Class I and Class III. Comparing the results concerning the depth of the palate with the existing literature is complex, because of the different software or manual systems used, especially given that the reference points chosen for measuring the palate height are different from one study to another. Some studies, such as the one we carried out, use gingival margins [16] as reference points, while others measure height by including dental cusps [17; 18]. From the comparison between the three subgroups analyzed in Class II, a statistically significant difference in the interpolar distance was found, confirming the fact that hypodivergent patients in Class II have a wider maxillary arch when compared to the normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients of the same class. Hypodivergent Class II subjects exhibit wider palatal dimensions compared to hyperdivergent subjects due to the interaction between craniofacial growth patterns and mechanical forces. Specifically, hypodivergent individuals, characterized by a lower mandibular plane angle, tend to have a more horizontally oriented growth trajectory. This promotes greater transverse development of the maxilla, resulting in a wider palatal arch. Conversely, in hyperdivergent subjects with a higher mandibular plane angle, vertical growth predominates, limiting the transverse expansion of the maxilla and leading to a narrower and deeper palate. Furthermore, the tongue's resting posture and its contact with the palate during functional activities such as swallowing might differ between these groups, amplifying the observed differences. Thus, the result obtained is consistent with the statements in the literature, listed below/as here reported. According to the article by [PERSON] et al. [15], in fact, hyperdivergent subjects in Class II tend to have a narrower palate, but it is higher than the hypodivergent subjects in the same class, which instead have a lower and wider palate. [PERSON] et al., in a further study [14], analyzed the differences between Class II patients with a high SN-MP angle and Class II patients with a lower SN-MP angle. In this case, a difference in transversality emerged in the interanine distance: a smaller value was found in hyperdivergent subjects than in hypodivergent ones. The study by [PERSON] et al. [19] analyzed a sample of 185 subjects--not orthodonically treated--between 18 and 68 years with complete permanent dentition (except third molars), with the aim of identifying the differences between the dental arches according to the vertical pattern. The result was that as the SN-MP angle increased and the divergence increased, the arch width decreased. According to the results of the study by [PERSON] et al. [16], the molar and interpolar amplitude is greater in hypodivergent subjects than in hyperdivergent ones. The conclusions of this study confirm the results of the above studies: the transverse maxillary dimensions are greater in hypodivergent subjects than in hyperdivergent ones. An interesting result of this study is that the palate area is significantly greater in Class I than in Class II. Looking at the studies on this topic, there is no significant contribution in the analysis of the palate area in the different malocclusions and in the different facial verticalities, so this theme can be further explored in the literature.