## 4 Discussion  
This controlled prospective study compares the impact on masticatory muscle activity between two different techniques, while OVD was increased utilizing digital and traditional mockups. For determination of impact on masticatory muscle activity surface electromyography was employed, by using Teethan device, which consists of four wireless probes placed on the anterior temporal and \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\Delta\)**1 = T1–T0**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(\Delta\)**2 = T2-T1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(\Delta\)**3 = T2-T0**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Taditional**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CAD**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Traditional**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CAD**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Traditional**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CAD**} \\  & **(n = 10)** & **(n = 12)** & **(n = 10)** & **(n = 12)** & **(n = 10)** & **(n = 12)** & \\ \hline  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **_p-Value_ & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **_p-Value_ & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **_p-Value_ \\ \hline POC TA & 7.33 \(\pm\) 9.59 & 6.29 \(\pm\) 18.23 & 0.129 & 0.96 \(\pm\) 2.51 & 1.87 \(\pm\) 4.18 & 0.644 & 8.29 \(\pm\) 10.68 & 8.16 \(\pm\) 17.84 & 0.51 \\ POC MM & 1.87 \(\pm\) 5.04 & \(\pm\)0.84 \(\pm\) 7.02 & 0.429 & 1.53 \(\pm\) 4.53 & 5.37 \(\pm\) 7.10 & 0.262 & 3.40 \(\pm\) 5.79 & 4.53 \(\pm\) 6.23 & 0.692 \\ BAR & 6.84 \(\pm\) 13.47 & 8.54 \(\pm\) 12.2 & 0.692 & 3.19 \(\pm\) 4.63 & 2.10 \(\pm\) 5.53 & 0.921 & 10.03 \(\pm\) 13.14 & 10.64 \(\pm\) 15.57 & 1 \\ TORS & 2.57 \(\pm\) 4.89 & 2.23 \(\pm\) 6.28 & 0.843 & 0.78 \(\pm\) 2.11 & 2.67 \(\pm\) 4.15 & 0.291 & 3.35 \(\pm\) 52.58 & 4.89 \(\pm\) 4.95 & 0.468 \\ IMP & 37.70 \(\pm\) 32.60 & 4.95 \(\pm\) 63.4 & 0.012 \({}^{\star}\) & 4.67 \(\pm\) 69.91 & 3.67 \(\pm\) 45.50 & 0.553 & 42.37 \(\pm\) 52.18 & 8.62 \(\pm\) 45.54 & 0.075 \\ ASIM & 1.09 \(\pm\) 13.55 & -3.03 \(\pm\) 14.58 & 0.692 & -1.97 \(\pm\) 5.24 & -0.34 \(\pm\) 14.76 & 0.391 & \(-\)0.88 \(\pm\) 13.27 & -3.36 \(\pm\) 16.06 & 0.644 \\ TOT & 5.30 \(\pm\) 7.89 & 5.08 \(\pm\) 6.19 & 0.868 & 2.00 \(\pm\) 1.41 & 2.67 \(\pm\) 3.68 & 0.838 & 7.3 \(\pm\) 7.63 & 7.75 \(\pm\) 7.28 & 0.895 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Differences between the two groups (traditional, digital) at different time gaps (\(\Delta\)1, \(\Delta\)2, \(\Delta\)3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **T0 (n = 10)** & **T1 (n = 10)** & **T2 (n = 10)** & **T0 vs. T1** & **T1 vs. T2** & **T0 vs. T2** \\ \hline  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **_p-Value_ & **_p-Value_ & **_p-Value_** \\ \hline POC TA & 76.84 \(\pm\) 18.21 & 83.13 \(\pm\) 7.48 & 84.99 \(\pm\) 5.20 & 0.695 & 0.084 & 0.084 \\ POC MM & 80.72 \(\pm\) 8.28 & 79.89 \(\pm\) 10.01 & 85.26 \(\pm\) 6.33 & 0.875 & 0.019 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.012 \({}^{\star}\) \\ BAR & 77.94 \(\pm\) 17.96 & 86.48 \(\pm\) 8.12 & 88.58 \(\pm\) 4.63 & 0.019 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.041 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.005 \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ TORS & 85.81 \(\pm\) 5.47 & 88.04 \(\pm\) 4.98 & 90.71 \(\pm\) 1.92 & 0.084 & 0.015 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.002 \({}^{\star}\) \\ IMP & 102.59 \(\pm\) 38.88 & 10.54 \(\pm\) 57.24 & 11.21 \(\pm\) 54.77 & 0.48 & 0.875 & 1 \\ ASIM & 4.15 \(\pm\) 18.15 & 1.12 \(\pm\) 16.28 & 0.78 \(\pm\) 4.05 & 0.388 & 0.754 & 0.388 \\ TOT & 79.83 \(\pm\) 9.57 & 84.92 \(\pm\) 6.26 & 87.58 \(\pm\) 3.9 & 0.004 \({}^{\star\star}\) & 0.007 \({}^{\star\star\star}\) & 0.003 \({}^{\star\star\star}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\star}\)_p_ \(<\) 0.05; \({}^{\star\star}\)_p_ \(<\) 0.01; n = number of the sample.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparing means of each variable at T0, T1 and T2 for digital group (%). masseter muscles to detect muscular activity during two clench tasks of 5 s each. This system makes it possible to determine the presence/absence of prevalences, torsions and imbalances through the analyses of collected data [17].