ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2026
Comparative Evaluation of Transverse Maxillary Arch Changes in Mixed Dentition with Clear Aligners vs Conventional Maxillary Expanders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate and compare the effects of clear aligner therapy (CAT) vs conventional maxillary expanders [rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and slow maxillary expansion (SME)] in treating maxillary arch constriction during mixed dentition with a focus on transverse arch parameters, including intercanine and intermolar widths, molar inclination, arch perimeter, and palatal depth. Materials and methods: Electronic searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Medline upto August 2025 identified 341 records. Studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective cohorts assessing ME outcomes with clear aligners and conventional RME/SME expanders in mixed dentition patients. Outcomes included intercanine width, intermolar width, arch perimeter, arch width and depth, molar inclination, and palatal volume. Risk of bias was evaluated using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) for RCTs and the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) for nonrandomized studies. Results: Eight studies met inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 412 patients aged 8.4 ± 1.3 years. Meta-analysis showed a significant trend favoring maxillary expanders over CAT for both intercanine width expansion [-0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.17, 0.09; Conclusion: RME demonstrated significantly greater increases in intermolar width compared to CAT, while intercanine width changes were comparable between treatments. Although both modalities effectively address transverse deficiencies in mixed dentition, they differ in expansion patterns and dental effects, with CAT offering more controlled dentoalveolar expansion and minimal molar tipping. How to cite this article: Athawale S, Mohelay N, Batra P,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.