Systematic review and meta-analysis explores clear aligners' effectiveness in maxillary expansion via orthodontics.
BACKGROUND: Maxillary transverse deficiency is one of the most common issues encountered in orthodontic practice. Ideally, intervention should take place before the midpalatal suture has completely ossified, in order to take advantage of the patient's active growth. In recent years, treatment with clear aligners has emerged as an alternative to fixed appliances, offering a new way to achieve expansion in paediatric patients. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to analyse the predictability of movements induced by clear aligners in maxillary expansion, and to compare the effectiveness of the Invisalign First® system with conventional expansion appliances. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed-Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Retrospective and prospective studies, as well as one randomised clinical trial, published between January 2021 and October 2025, which answered the PICO question, were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: statistic, and the results were presented in a forest plot. The Trim and Fill method was used to assess publication bias. RESULTS: ; - 738.32; - 182.94 95%CI; - 3.25 Z-test, p = 0.0011); and arch perimeter ( - 1.75 mm; - 2.71; - 0.80 95%CI; - 3.59 Z-test, p = 0.0003). These results indicate that aligners produce significantly less skeletal transverse expansion than conventional expanders. CONCLUSIONS: Clear aligners appear to be capable of producing maxillary expansion, mainly through dentoalveolar changes that are more evident in the anterior region and at the level of deciduous teeth. In patients presenting with more pronounced transverse deficiencies, conventional expanders seem to achieve greater skeletal and posterior transverse changes. However, given that most of the current evidence derives from retrospective studies with moderate risk of bias, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously and confirmed by well-designed prospective research. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420250608558.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Planells et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: