## 3 Review  
### Class II  
There are two treatment options in Class II borderline post-pubertal correction: orthodontic camouflage with or without genioplasty and orthodontic-surgical correction \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{**Skeletal and soft tissue measurements:**} \\ \hline - & ANB angle \\ - & Wits appraisal \\ - & Skeletal convexity (NA-Pg) \\ - & Maxilla–mandibula ratio (M–M ratio) \\ - & Mandibular length \\ - & Lower gonal angle \\ - & SN length \\ - & Facial height \\ - & Holdaway angle \\ - & Soft tissue convexity including the nose (NO-Pn-PogO) \\ - & Soft tissue convexity excluding the nose (NO-Sn-PogO) \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{**Dental measurements:**} \\ \hline - & OVJ \\ - & Molar relationship \\ - & Interincisal angle \\ - & Lower incisal angle \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Cephalometric values used to identify skeletal borderline patients. through single jaw or bimaxillary surgery. In orthodontic camouflage treatment, the goal is to mask the skeletal discrepancy through dental compensation. When extractions are required, they are generally done in the upper arch (first premolars) to correct the overjet and/or the protrusion of the upper incisors [14]. In addition, the use of functional appliances, advocated in younger patient to enhance mandibular growth modification, have been reported in adult patients to change dental position only [20; 21]. Conversely, orthodontic-surgical treatment aims to correct the underlying skeletal deformity. Dental decompensation is a fundamental prerequisite in the orthodontic-first approach, while with a surgery-first protocol, it should be considered an absolute objective of post-surgery orthodontics for treatment stability. Previous experience suggests that there are flaws in the process of selecting treatment options [21]. According to the available literature, there are no clear guidelines on the best treatment approach for Class II adult borderline patients [14]. Study Design and Treatment Interventions  
Concerning skeletal Class II patients, we found 6 non-randomized clinical trials (N-RCT) and one systematic review (Table 2). All studies are retrospective cephalometric studies which compare orthodontic-only intervention and orthodontic-surgical intervention through skeletal, dental, and soft tissue cephalometric changes from baseline to the end of treatment (Table 3). Some studies added dental cast measurements and patient and/or clinician retrospective evaluation of outcomes of facial soft tissue by the clinician and/or patient satisfaction. Four studies [2; 20; 22; 23] reported a variable period of follow-up. The most represented malocclusion was Class II Division 1, and the primary surgical intervention undertaken was mandibular advancement. Compared to other surgery procedures, bimaxilary surgery was reported as a treatment option in very few studies. In a 1992 retrospective study, [PERSON] et al. [20] compared the short-term (1-year post treatment) outcomes (33 patients treated with orthodontics-only, and 57 with surgery and orthodontics) by evaluating whether the final measurement values fell within the normal range, as well as the quantitative amount of correction produced relative to an \"ideal\" value. Also, a group of judges rated esthetic changes from frontal and profile photographs. Whether or not most patients in both groups achieved acceptable changes in the occlusal parameters, overall surgical treatment resulted in greater improvement for most criteria (cephalometric skeletal, dental, and soft tissue); in particular, a significantly greater percentage of the \"ideal\" goal was achieved for the ANB Angle, maxillary incis position, soft tissue A-B difference, and overjet (OVJ). Esthetic changes determined by orthodontic treatment were small (ratings remained unchanged), whereas those determined by surgical treatment were substantial, especially in patients with the lowest initial ratings.