## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Paired Differences**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Mean** & **S.D.** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Standard** \\ **Error Mean** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **95\%Confidence Interval** \\ **of the Difference** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**t-Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**2-Tailed Test Result**} \\ \cline{5-7}  & & & & **Lower** & **Upper** & \\ \hline MPOCWO\_t0-t1 & 3.17219 & 12.33460 & 2.18047 & \(-1.27491\) & 7.61929 & 1.455 & 0.156 \\ \hline MPOCWO\_t0-t2 & 2.05625 & 12.90274 & 2.28090 & \(-2.59568\) & 6.70818 & 0.902 & 0.374 \\ \hline MPOCWO\_t0-t3 & \(-0.12594\) & 11.20060 & 1.98000 & \(-4.16418\) & 3.91231 & \(-0.064\) & 0.950 \\ \hline MPOCWO\_t1-t2 & \(-1.11594\) & 12.10783 & 2.14038 & \(-5.48127\) & 3.24940 & \(-0.521\) & 0.606 \\ \hline MPOCWO\_t1-t3 & \(-3.29813\) & 12.02473 & 2.12569 & \(-7.65350\) & 1.03725 & \(-1.552\) & 0.131 \\ \hline MPOCW\_t0-t1 & \(-1.16291\) & 9.55429 & 1,68898 & \(-4.60750\) & 2.28188 & \(-0.688\) & 0.496 \\ \hline MPOCW\_t0-t2 & \(-1.01500\) & 13.19991 & 2.33335 & \(-5.77389\) & 3.74389 & \(-0.435\) & 0.667 \\ \hline MPOCW\_t0-t3 & \(-3.15219\) & 9.80281 & 1.73291 & \(-6.68648\) & 0.38210 & \(-1.819\) & 0.079 \\ \hline MPOCW\_t1-t2 & 0.14781 & 12.33287 & 2.18016 & \(-4.29866\) & 4.59429 & 0.068 & 0.946 \\ \hline MPOCW\_t1-t3 & \(-1.98938\) & 8.29327 & 1.46606 & \(-4.97942\) & 1.00067 & \(-1.357\) & 0.185 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Paired difference between the 2-time-point averages of the MPOC, with and without _Ripara_ device. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Patients** & **DOP\_Right t3-t0** & **DOP\_Left t3-t0** \\ \hline
1 & \(-5.00\) & \(-5.00\) \\
2 & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) \\
3 & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) \\
4 & \(-7.00\) & \(-4.00\) \\
5 & \(-6.00\) & \(-1.00\) \\
6 & \(-5.00\) & \(-6.00\) \\
7 & \(-10.00\) & \(-8.00\) \\
8 & \(-3.00\) & \(-3.0  
Therefore, based on Table 3, we can argue that we have several promising results in pain control with the use of the lingual ring tested here. The statistical data reported here have clearly demonstrated how, at the end of the therapy with the lingual ring (T3), the pain at palpation progressively decreases in all patients. The results thereby suggest that therapy with the innovative device decreases the muscular hypertonus in TMD patients; moreover, this device increases the muscular hypertonus for the patients who present an opposite characteristic, bringing back isometry and symmetry to the muscular apparatus. Normalization of the electromyographic values also resulted in a better masticatory efficiency, considered as a better contraction strength, symmetry, and balance during mastication. These results refer to the electromyographic values at the end of the therapy, indicating that the patient finds a new neuromuscular scheme equipped with more harmony and syntony between the right and left antimeres, and also muscular isotonicity. Thus, the therapy carried out with the Lingual Ring improves the instrumental parameters even without being in position after the therapy. Table 4 reports the analysis of the bivariate correlation between the differences of pain (DOP) reported on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from T0 to T3: these data were recorded for both the right and left Masseters. The difference between right and left Masseter is correlated with the right and left Masseter POC; in particular, the difference observed in the timespan T0-T3 related to the right Masseter pain is directly linked with the difference related to the left Masseter pain (0.035 significance). Table 4 also reports the \"Pearson Correlation\" analysis, which describes if two variables are dependent or independent with a specific condition: it seems that the clinical parameter of pain and the instrumental parameter of Masseter POC are closely linked.