Open Collections

Abstract

Objectives: To compare patient-reported outcomes between the Invisalign® Palatal Expander (IPE) and the Rapid Maxillary Expander (RME) in children undergoing maxillary expansion, focusing on pain, discomfort, functional impact, and quality of life during the first two weeks of treatment. Methods: This prospective clinical trial included 60 children aged 7–12 years (30 treated with IPE, 30 with RME) from five orthodontic clinics. Participants completed structured questionnaires at 1, 7, and 14 days after appliance insertion, assessing pain, discomfort, functional limitations, and quality-of-life factors using visual analogue scales (VAS) and fixed-choice yes-or-no questions. Statistical analyses were conducted using parametric and non-parametric tests, with significance set at P < .05. Results: Both groups experienced similar overall patterns of improvement across the 14-day period, with most patient-reported symptoms decreasing to mild or moderate levels by Day 14. The IPE group reported slightly higher discomfort at insertion, while the RME group experienced more functional limitations such as chewing and speech difficulties in the early stages. However, these differences were not consistently statistically significant and not necessarily clinically significant. Both appliances were generally well tolerated after the initial adjustment period, and no serious adverse effects were reported in either group. Conclusions: Both IPE and RME are clinically acceptable options for maxillary expansion in children. Although there were some early differences in patient experiences between the two groups, both appliances showed favourable adaptation over time, with no major complications observed. These findings can help guide clinicians in setting realistic treatment expectations and discussing comfort considerations with patients and their families.