## 3 Results  
A total number of 22 patients completed the study, among them ten patients (mean age 37 \(\pm\) 0.5 years) were treated by using the traditional technique while twelve patients (mean age 42 \(\pm\) 0.8 years) underwent digital treatment. In general, in the whole sample it registered an increase of OVD of about 1.5-3.5 mm.  
For each group seven parameters were assessed by means of electromyography at pretreatment (T0), midtreatment (T1) and post-treatment (T2) times.  
Tables 2 and 3 show the mean \(\pm\) SD values of each variable at different times (T0, T1, T2) in two separate groups (traditional and digital).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Name** & **Significance** & **Normal Value** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{POC TA} & Percentage overlapping & A measure of the predominance of & \\  & coefficient (anterior temporalis & the right or left anterior temporalis & 83\% \(\leq\) X \(\leq\) 100\% \\  & muscles) & in the anterior teeth contacts & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{POC MM} & Percentage overlapping & A measure of the predominance of & \\  & coefficient (maseter muscles) & the right or left masseter in the & 83\% \(\leq\) X \(\leq\) 100\% \\  & & posterior teeth contacts & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{BAR} & Percentage overlapping & A measure of the predominance of & \\  & coefficient between posterior & the posterior or anterior teeth & 90\% \(\leq\) X \(\leq\) 100\% \\  & and anterior teeth contact & contacts & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{TORS} & \multirow{3}{*}{Torsion index: percentage of } & It is obtained by comparing the & \\  & & torque of the crossed muscle pairs: & \\  & & comparison between the torque of & \\  & Torsion index: percentage of & the right temporal and left masseter & \\  & torsion of the mandible & pair (for convention torque to the & \\  & & right) with the torque of the left & \\  & & temporal and right masseter pair & \\  & & (for convention torque to the left). & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{IMP} & Impact index: work performed & The work is represented & \\  & by the muscle during its & geometrically by the area subtended & \\  & contractile activity. & to the curve of electrical activity of & \\  & & the muscles examined over time. & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ASIM} & Asymmetry index: distribution & \\  & of the occlusal contacts & \\  & considering the right and left & \\  & parts of dental arches, on the & \\  & frontal plane. The pairs of & \\  & muscles examined are & \\  & represented by the temporal and & \\  & masseter muscles & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{TOT} & \multirow{3}{*}{Total muscular work} & Muscular work globally produced & \\  & & by the four analyzed muscles & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Variables considered.  
For each of the seven parameters, the variation between the different times was analyzed.  
Analysis of parameters at different times for the traditional group (Table 2) revealed a significant variation in POC TA and IMP at \"T0 vs. T1\" and \"T0 vs. T2\", BAR at \"T0 vs. T2\" and TOT at all three time comparisons.  
In the digital group (Table 3), POC MM and TORS at \"T1 vs. T2\" and \"T0 vs. T2\", TORS at \"T1 vs. T2\" and \"T0 vs. T2\", and \"T0 vs. T2\", BAR and TOT at all three time comparisons showed a significant difference.  
Table 4 demonstrates the differences between the two groups (traditional and digital) at different time gaps. At \(\Delta\)1 (T1-T0) only IMP showed a significant change and no other significant variation was observed between the two groups at \(\Delta\)2 (T2-T1) and \(\Delta\)3 (T2-T0). It can be substantiated from analysis results that traditional and digital methods generally have no significant differences.