## 3 Results  
The results, expressed in mm (Table 3), obtained from all the dependent variables from T0 to T4 (for each \(p<0.001\)) are shown below. Viewing the results in a bullet-point list, we observe the following:  
**Time 0:** day of intervention. **Time 1:** there were not any significant differences in Kotlow. MOTTIP had a better trend of growth in GD than in GC; there was no a significant difference in the other groups. MIO in GB, GD and GE obtained a score superior to GC; GA is an intermediate position. The value of Protrusion was greater in GE than in the other groups. **Time 2:** there were no significant differences in Kotlow. MOTTIP had a trend of growth better in GD and GE compared to GB and GA; there was no significant difference in the other groups. MIO in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **Group** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Kotlow**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MOTTIP**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MIO**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Protrusion**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**NRS**} \\  & & **T0** & **T4** & **T0** & **T4** & **T0** & **T4** & **T0** & **T4** & **24 H** & **30 D** \\ \hline
**A** & Average & 17.5 & 26.5 & 19.7 & 23 & 38 & 44.1 & 17.6 & 21 & 6.8 & 0 \\  & Std deviation & 2.26 & 3.9 & 5.6 & 4.52 & 5.6 & 4.9 & 2.7 & 5.8 & 1.9 & 0 \\  & Minimum & 15 & 20 & 15 & 17 & 35 & 37 & 15 & 14 & 4 & 0 \\  & Maximum & 20 & 32 & 31 & 30 & 50 & 50 & 22 & 32 & 10 & 0 \\ \hline
**B** & Average & 14 & 24.8 & 15.1 & 23.5 & 39.6 & 43.5 & 14 & 21 & 2.9 & 0 \\  & Std deviation & 2.9 & 3.4 & 6.7 & 4.2 & 4.6 & 4.0 & 5.1 & 5.4 & 2.1 & 0 \\  & Minimum & 10 & 21 & 5 & 15 & 35 & 40 & 7 & 15 & 0 & 0 \\  & Maximum & 18 & 30 & 25 & 30 & 50 & 50 & 21 & 30 & 6 & 0 \\ \hline
**C** & Average & 15.3 & 23.7 & 14.3 & 23.7 & 36 & 40 & 16 & 21.3 & 7.1 & 0 \\  & Std deviation & 4.27 & 3.90 & 5.6 & 6.6 & 4.5 & 4.2 & 5.8 & 6.7 & 2.6 & 0 \\  & Minimum & 10 & 17 & 9 & 15 & 27 & 30 & 4.2 & 6.5 & 2 & 0 \\  & Maximum & 20 & 28 & 25 & 35 & 40 & 43 & 25 & 30 & 10 & 0 \\ \hline
**D** & Average & 16.3 & 27.5 & 17.9 & 29 & 39.2 & 45.7 & 18.4 & 23.3 & 6.0 & 0 \\  & Std deviation & 4.0 & 4.3 & 6.6 & 6.9 & 3.9 & 5.7 & 4.2 & 6.5 & 2.8 & 1.2 \\  & Minimum & 10 & 20 & 10 & 17 & 35 & 40 & 12 & 16 & 2 & 0 \\  & Maximum & 21 & 33 & 25 & 35 & 45 & 55 & 25 & 35 & 9 & 3 \\ \hline
**E** & Average & 20.9 & 25.9 & 22.6 & 26.1 & 40.3 & 44.3 & 20.4 & 23.5 & & \\  & Std deviation & 3.6 & 2.6 & 5.7 & 5.5 & 5.4 & 4.6 & 4.3 & 4.1 & control.g & control.g \\  & Minimum & 15 & 23 & 15 & 15 & 35 & 40 & 14 & 17 & control.g & control.g \\  & Maximum & 30 & 31 & 32 & 36 & 45 & 55 & 25 & 30 & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Quantitative results of parameters and NRS evaluation. GC obtained a lower score than the other groups. The value of Protrusion was greater in GD and GE in comparison to the other groups. **Time 3:** the scores of Kotlow and MOTTIP were superior in GD than in the other groups. MIO in GC obtained a lower score than the other groups. In protrusion, there was no significant difference. **Time 4:** the score of Kotlow was superior in GD compared to GC; there was no significant difference in the other groups. MOTTIP had a better trend of growth in GD than in the other groups. MIO in GC obtained a lower score than the other groups. There was no significant difference in Protrusion. From the beginning of treatment (Figures 1 and 2) to the end (Figures 2 and 3): for Kotlow, the increase was more or less the same in all the groups, except for the control group; for MOTTIP, the largest increases were observed in GB, GC, and GD; for MIO, the increase was significant in all groups except for GC; the increase of Protrusion was similar in all groups. The perception of pain at T0 was lower in GB than in the other groups; at T4, the score was 0 in all the groups.