Transverse Maxillary Correction: Leaf Expander vs. Rapid Maxillary Expansion Appliances—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

TL;DR

This study compares two dental appliances for correcting maxillary deficiency in growing patients and finds they are similarly effective but differ in biomechanical outcomes.

Contribution

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing dentoskeletal effects of Leaf Expander-based SME and conventional RME in skeletally immature patients.

Findings

Both Leaf Expander-based SME and RME achieved significant transverse maxillary expansion.

RME showed greater anterior dental and skeletal gains, while SME resulted in comparable intermolar expansion with more molar distorotation.

Three-dimensional analyses indicated similar morphological enlargement between the two methods.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Transverse maxillary deficiency in growing patients can be treated using rapid maxillary expansion (RME) or slow maxillary expansion (SME) with spring-based appliances, such as the Leaf Expander (LE), but their comparative dentoskeletal effects remain debated. This study evaluated the transverse dentoskeletal outcomes of LE-based SME versus conventional RME. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to 9 January 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LE-based SME and RME in skeletally immature patients were included. Primary outcomes were transverse maxillary change; secondary outcomes included dentoalveolar side effects. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. When possible, a meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean differences and a random-effects model. Results: Four RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Both SME and RME achieved significant transverse expansion. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between protocols for inter-canine distance, inter-second deciduous molar distance, inter-first permanent molar distance, or basal maxillary width. Intergroup differences varied by anatomical site and measurement method: RME showed greater anterior dental and skeletal transverse gains, whereas SME achieved comparable intermolar expansion with greater molar distorotation. Three-dimensional analyses indicated similar morphological enlargement. Risk of bias ranged from low to high; the certainty of evidence was low to very low for most transverse parameters and moderate only for molar distorotation. Conclusions: Both LE-based SME and RME effectively correct transverse maxillary deficiency. Quantitative synthesis showed comparable overall transverse expansion, with differences mainly related to the distribution and biomechanical pattern of dentoskeletal effects rather than the absolute amount of expansion achieved. Appliance selection should be guided by biomechanical features and individual treatment objectives. Further high-quality RCTs with standardized three-dimensional protocols and longer follow-up are needed.

Figures