## 4 Discussion  
The aim of this study was to demonstrate body posture adjustments during functional treatment of Skeletal Class II with FR-2 appliance. All the posturostabilometric parameters examined in this study--except for the Xmm--showed statistically significant changes, leading to refuse the null hypothesis. Analyzing [PERSON]'s multiple comparisons of the repeated measures ANOVA for BTA (Table 4), a significant decrease of mean values of BTA is noticeable: this can be explained by an improvement of the body twisting. This occurs both for RP and CO conditions, passing from the first to the last evaluation during functional orthopedic therapy. The progressive decrease of WD represents a reduction of the load difference existing between the two feet and so an improved body balance. Regarding the Xmm, no important variations were found during the therapy. The lack of significance of barycenter's variation can be due to intrinsic parameter variability and reduced sample size. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that considerable oscillations and torsions of the barycenter are normally found in growing subjects, due to not fully developed postural systems [20]. The body postural system is a complex kinematic system, composed of a central unit with command function--the central nervous system--which processes and integrates receptor signals: Ocular and feet receptors are the most important ones, but stomatographic system, joints, and muscles are also involved [21]. In the last years, the dynamic and functional relationship between the stomatognathic system and postural problems is becoming increasingly important due to the proximity between the trigeminal nerve endings and the first cervical plexuses: [PERSON] evidenced projections of the trigeminal up in the most caudal portion of the brainstem and at the spinal level up to C5 contralateral and C7 homolateral [22; 23]. Many authors have studied patients with malocclusions finding a correlation with spinal deformity: [PERSON] et al. found that the head posture deeply influences the facial growth direction that leads to mandibular postural adaptations and consequently changes in the skeletal growth with dentoalveolar compensation or adaptation [24]. [PERSON] et al. concluded that the mandible seems to have a greater effect on body posture than other craniofacial parameters [25]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] evaluated the effects of head position on intraoral \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Multiple Comparisons Test** & **Mean Differences** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline
**T0 RP vs. T0 CO** & 0.53 & 0.7687 \\ \hline
**T0 RP vs. T1 RP** & 1.77 & 0.4964 \\ \hline
**T0 RP vs. T1 CO** & 1.94 & 0.5482 \\ \hline
**T0 RP vs. T2 RP** & 4.81 & 0.0195 \\ \hline
**T0 RP vs. T2 CO** & 4.57 & 0.0071 \\ \hline
**T0 CO vs. T1 RP** & 1.23 & 0.6921 \\ \hline
**T0 CO vs. T1 CO** & 1.40 & 0.7913 \\ \hline
**T0 CO vs. T2 RP** & 4.27 & 0.0330 \\ \hline
**T0 CO vs. T2 CO** & 4.04 & 0.0085 \\ \hline
**T1 RP vs. T1 CO** & 0.17 & 0.9998 \\ \hline
**T1 RP vs. T2 RP** & 3.04 & 0.0444 \\ \hline
**T1 RP vs. T2 CO** & 2.80 & 0.0204 \\ \hline
**T1 CO vs. T2 RP** & 2.87 & 0.0521 \\ \hline
**T1 CO vs. T2 CO** & 2.63 & 0.0570 \\ \hline
**T2 RP vs. T2 CO** & \(-\)0.23 & 0.9989 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Legend: RP, rest position; CO, occlusal contact.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: [PERSON]’s multiple comparisons of the repeated measures ANOVA test on BTA. pressures in adults with Class I and II malocclusions and stated that posture could be an important factor in the development of skeletal morphology and dental position [26]. This can be essential for better understanding the etiology of malocclusions and the prognosis of orthodontic treatments. However, some studies have not found an important correlation between the stomatognathic system and body posture.