## 3 Results  
From a total of 72 volunteers responding to the announcements, three were excluded because of vertigo non associated with TMD. Finally, 69 subjects (43.5% male and 36.2% TMD) were finally included in the analyses. Table 1 summarizes demographic data of the total sample, by gender and presence/absence of TMD. In general, males showed greater height, weight, BMI, and foot size. Thus, populations with TMD showed lower weight, BMI, and foot size scores compared with healthy controls.  
Data regarding the importance of visual input in stabilometry for both TMD and healthy populations are stated in Table 2. In both populations, an increased oscillation surface, length and mean speed were found (all, \(p<0.0001\)). In addition, the healthy population decreased both AP-Length and SVFAP in closed-eyes measurements compared with opened-eyes (both, \(p<0.01\)). Finally, we found no differences between healthy and  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Subjects** (_tri_ **\%**) & **Age** (_years_) & **Height** (_m_) & **Weight** (_kg_) & **BMI** (_kg/m2_) & **Foot Size** (_European_ **System_) \\ \hline Sample & 69; 100 & 32.4 \(\pm\) 8.8 & 1.72 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 68.5 \(\pm\) 14.0 & 22.8 \(\pm\) 3.1 & 40.6 \(\pm\) 3.1 \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Gender**} \\ \hline Male & 30; 43.5 & 33.4 \(\pm\) 7.1 & 1.79 \(\pm\) 0.06 * & 80.6 \(\pm\) 10.9 * & 24.9 \(\pm\) 2.5 * & 43.5 \(\pm\) 1.7 * \\ \hline Female & 39; 56.6 & 31.7 \(\pm\) 9.9 & 1.66 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 57.2 \(\pm\) 7.5 & 21.2 \(\pm\) 2.6 & 38.4 \(\pm\) 1.9 \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Cases and Controls**} \\ \hline TMD & 25; 36.2 & 29.8 \(\pm\) 8.1 & 1.70 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 63.0 \(\pm\) 10.9 ** & 21.6 \(\pm\) 2.8 ** & 39.7 \(\pm\) 2.8 ** \\ \hline _Articular_ & 16; 23.2 & 29.3 \(\pm\) 10.2 & 1.70 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 60.5 \(\pm\) 12.6 & 20.7 \(\pm\) 2.6 & 39.6 \(\pm\) 3.3 \\ \hline _Musular_ & 9; 13.0 & 30.1 \(\pm\) 7.0 & 1.70 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 64.4 \(\pm\) 10.0 & 22.1 \(\pm\) 2.9 & 39.7 \(\pm\) 2.6 \\ \hline Healthy & 44; 63.8 & 33.9 \(\pm\) 8.9 & 1.73 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 71.6 \(\pm\) 14.7 & 23.5 \(\pm\) 3.1 & 41.1 \(\pm\) 3.2 TMD populations in closed-eyes measurements in any stabilizer outcome (all, \(p>0.05\)). However, significant differences were found for oscillation surface (\(p<0.01\)), AP-Length (\(p<0.01\)), SVFAP (\(p<0.05\)), and ASV (\(p<0.05\)).  
Data from the TMD population in three different occlusal postures reported in Table 3 showed no differences between postures for the assessed variables (all, \(p>0.05\)). Similarly, no differences between mandibular positions were found in healthy subjects (all, \(p>0.05\)) as shown in Table 4.  
Finally, stabiometric differences between TMD and healthy populations for each posture assessed are presented in Table 5. No differences were found between populations for none of the assessed outcomes (\(p>0.05\)), but medium intercuspidation with closed eyes (\(p<0.01\)).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline
**Stabilometric Outcomes** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TMD Population**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Healthy Population**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Between-Groups**} \\  & & & & & & & & \\
**Outcomes** & & & & & & & & \\ \hline  & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & \\ \hline  & & & & & & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Importance of Visual input for stabiometric features in subjects with and without TMD.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline
**Stabilometric Outcomes** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TMD Population**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Within Groups Mean Difference**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ANOVA Interaction**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Bonferroni Post Hoc**} \\  & **Pos. A** & **Pos. B** & **Pos. C** & **A vs. B** & **A vs. C** & **B vs. C** & & \\ \hline  & & & & & & & \\ \hline  & & & & & & & \\ \hline  & & & & & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Importance of mandibular position in stabiometric features in subjects with TMD.