## 4 Discussion
A notable contribution on this theme was given by the article by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [16], which, in addition to linear measures of the palate, aimed to analyze the area and the volume of the palate regarding the different types of malocclusion and divergence. Despite somesignificant differences in linear measurements, on average, the area and volume showed no major differences between the types of sagittal malocclusion and even between the different divergences. The study by [PERSON] et al. [20] also analyzed the area and volume of the palate, distinguishing these measures between a sample of mouth-breathing and a sample of nose-breathing subjects. Both area and volume were smaller in the mouth-breathing subjects. Our result of a greater surface palatal area in Class I subjects could represent an initial step in considering the treatment of developing Class II patients. The aim of the therapy could be to increase this specific area in developing Class II patients in order to raise maxillary dimensions, considering that this type of malocclusion is frequently/most often characterized by mandibular retrusion [21; 22; 23]. Further investigations could analyze the differences in the palate area between the different vertical growth patterns and the various types of malocclusion that exist. As regards the volume, there were no differences in any of the statistical comparisons. It is not easy to find articles that analyze volume differences in samples of untreated patients distinguished by the type of malocclusion. According to the authors, there are differences in the identification of reference plans when measuring samples. Among these, the work of [PERSON] et al. [24] aimed to evaluate the volumetric changes in the palate as a result of its rapid expansion in the early mixed dentition of 30 patients with an average age of 7 years, 6 months. Three-dimensional scanning of the upper arches was achieved by piezoelectric scanning of the models. The horizontal reference plane was obtained by joining the lowest point of the gum margin of a central incisor with the two lowest points of the gum margins of the first permanent molars. The posterior boundary is a plane tangent to the distal surface of the upper sixth, forming an angle of 90\({}^{\circ}\) with the horizontal plane. After treatment, the volume showed a significant increase. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [16] found no statistical differences in the palatal volume among types of malocclusions and facial divergence patterns. Differences emerge in choosing the position of the palatal surface in the 3D space: in the present study, the palate has been positioned to coincide distally with the previously cut surface and the upper first molars in the reference grid, in order to reduce errors in volumetric measurement. The morphological differences in the palate found by the analysis carried out in this study can be explained by referring to the etiopathogenesis. Multiple factors are involved in the development of malocclusion, which, according to [PERSON] [25], can be not only genetic [1] but also environmental [3; 4] or specific. Identifying morphological palatal differences among vertical facial patterns and different malocclusions can be useful for clinical purposes: the palate is studied in orthodontics for the purpose of anchoring. In the orthodontic field of space analysis, the investigation of the palatal arch of patients, from a skeletal point of view, could help a lot to achieve a complete knowledge of the maxillary dimensions and to carry out individualized treatments. For orthodontists, understanding these morphological variations is essential for individualized treatment plans, optimizing appliance selection, and improving post-treatment stability, thereby enhancing both the efficiency and efficacy of clinical outcomes. There are some limitations in this study that can be observed. The sample selected consisted of patients who spontaneously went to the orthodontic clinic and not of people randomly selected from the population.