## 3 Results
### Surgical Change  
One month after surgery, there was no significant difference in the horizontal position of the maxillae between the groups. In the vertical plane, point A in group S was better positioned than group LS (Table 3).  
The amounts of mandibular advancement in both groups did not show significant differences. The advancement in group S was 4.1 mm for point Id, whereas advancement in group LS was 3.1 mm for point Id. The amounts of vertical correction also did not differ.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **T1** & **T2** & **T3** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{IMW\_Mx\_crown} & Group S & 46.5 \(\pm\) 2.8 & 46.7 \(\pm\) 2.9 & 45.5 \(\pm\) 2.6 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group LS & 45.0 \(\pm\) 3.9 & 45.3 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 45.3 \(\pm\) 3.2 \\ \cline{2-5}  & \(p\)-value & 0.295 & 0.298 & 0.874 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{IMW\_Mx\_CR} & Group S & 45.7 \(\pm\) 2.6 & 45.5 \(\pm\) 2.9 & 45.1 \(\pm\) 2.9 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group LS & 45.0 \(\pm\) 3.3 & 44.1 \(\pm\) 3.7 & 44.6 \(\pm\) 3.3 \\ \cline{2-5}  & \(p\)-value & 0.578 & 0.307 & 0.686 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{IMW\_Mn\_crown} & Group S & 40.2 \(\pm\) 2.4 & 40.5 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 39.8 \(\pm\) 2.3 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group LS & 41.3 \(\pm\) 3.3 & 41.7 \(\pm\) 3.4 & 41.0 \(\pm\) 3.1 \\ \cline{2-5}  & \(p\)-value & 0.382 & 0.32 & 0.307 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{IMW\_Mn\_CR} & Group S & 42.1 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 43.2 [40.8;44.4] & 42.7 \(\pm\) 2.4 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group LS & 45.0 \(\pm\) 2.8 & 43.9 [42.6;45.6] & 44.0 \(\pm\) 3.1 \\ \cline{2-5}  & \(p\)-value & 0.017 \({}^{*}\) & 0.181 & 0.307 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{YTI\_crown} & Group S & 6.3 \(\pm\) 2.9 & 6.2 \(\pm\) 2.9 & 5.7 \(\pm\) 2.2 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group LS & 3.7 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 3.6 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 4.3 \(\pm\) 1.7 \\ \cline{2-5}  & \(p\)-value & 0.012 \({}^{*}\) & 0.026 \({}^{*}\) & 0.122 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{YTI\_CR} & Group S & 3.6 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 2.5 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 2.4 \(\pm\) 3.0 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group LS & 0.0 \(\pm\) 1.9 & \(-\)0.8 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 0.6 \(\pm\) 2.0 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & \(p\)-value & 0.001 \({}^{*}\) & 0.014 \({}^{*}\) & 0.136 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Abbreviations: IMW\_Mx_crown, intermolar width (IMW) of the maxillary arch at the central fossa; IMW\_Mx_CR, IMW of the maxillary arch at the the fraction; IMW\_Mn\_crown, IMW of the mandibular arch at the central fossa; IMW\_Mn\_CR, IMW of the mandibular arch at the function; YTI\_crown, YTI at the central fossa; YTI\_CR, YTI at the function;\({}^{*}\)\(p\)\(<\) 0.05.  
\end{table}
Table 4: Descriptive statistics of the transverse measurements according to the predictor variable (group) at different time periods.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Outcome Variable (\(\lx@math@degree\))** & & **T1** & **T2** & **T3** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Id(x)} & Group S & 49.3 \(\pm\) 5.0 & 53.4 \(\pm\) 7.0 & 52.8 \(\pm\) 6.7 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group LS & 50.7 \(\pm\) 4.7 & 53.8 \(\pm\) 5.5 & 52.2 \(\pm\) 5.2 \\ \cline{2-5}  & \(p\)-value & 0.529 & 0.887 & 0.83 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Id(y)} & Group S & 99.6 \(\pm\) 6.0 & 99.2 \(\pm\) 5.2 & 98.8 \(\pm\) 5.1 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group LS & 106.0 \(\pm\) 9.2 & 103.2 \(\pm\) 7.5 & 102.5 \(\pm\) 7.2 \\ \cline{2-5}  & \(p\)-value & 0.059 & 0.158 & 0.172 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}p\) \(<\) 0.05.  
\end{table}
Table 3: _Cont._Anterior movement of the mandible was accompanied by significant increases in SNB of 2.8\({}^{\circ}\) (group S) and 2.4\({}^{\circ}\) (group LS) (Table 2).  
IMWs (central fossa, CR) in the upper and lower arch did not show significant differences. Hence, YTIs (central fossa, CR) showed a significant difference (\(p\) = 0.026 and 0.014) (Table 4).