## 5 Discussion  
The results of this study suggest that both the use of Eptamed equilibrators and Spark clear aligners are equally effective in the treatment of dentoalveolar transverse discrepancies, with no significant differences observed between the two devices. The data showed no substantial variations in efficacy or treatment duration (T0, T1, T2), reinforcing the therapeutic validity of both devices in the context of upper arch expansion. Currently, the literature provides limited studies exploring the efficacy of elastodontic devices and clear aligners specifically for the treatment of dentoalveolar transverse discrepancies. Most studies focus on either the isolated use of one of these technologies or compare one of these with traditional methods, such as the Hass or Hyrax expander [7; 10]. Moreover, no studies have directly compared the efficacy of elastodontic devices and clear aligners in terms of their impact on transverse arch development. To the best of our knowledge, this study is among the first to compare these two therapeutic approaches directly. Several other studies in the literature have examined the use of Eptamed equilibrators and Spark aligners for treating different malocclusions, reporting results similar to those found in our study. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [8] [PERSON] et al. [11], and [PERSON] et al. [12] assessed dental changes, focusing on improvements in molar relationships, overjet, and overbite with the use of these devices in samples of 60 patients aged 7 to 15 years, 36 patients aged 6 to 10 years and 40 patients with a mean age of 8 years, respectively. Another research [13] examined the effects of elastodontic devices in the treatment of FPEX in growing patients, which focuses on transverse maxillary expansion. The treatment group (TG) included 25 subjects (mean age 7.3 \(\pm\) 0.9 years), while the control group (CG) consisted of 14 untreated subjects (mean age 6.8 \(\pm\) 0.7 years). This study demonstrated that  
Figure 3: Box plot representing within-group analysis Mann–Whitney U adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni) was applied. the elastodontic appliance significantly increased the transverse dimension of the maxillary arch, with improvements observed both at the alveolar and basal levels. On the other hand, several authors have observed that clear aligners, due to their aesthetic features and improved comfort, are particularly suitable for younger patients, facilitating better treatment adherence [14]. Aligners are also preferred for mild malocclusions and less invasive treatments, as their effectiveness is greater when applied to minor dental disorders. In contrast, elastodontic devices, with their capacity to directly influence skeletal growth and transverse arch expansion, are suitable for treating more complex malocclusions, offering a multidimensional intervention that not only aligns the teeth, but also impacts functional and postural balance [15]. Several studies [16; 17; 18; 19] have examined the expansion capacity of dental aligners, with results showing that transverse expansion is achievable, though more limited, primarily due to tooth inclination movements, which were most effective in the premolar area. This type of dental movement allows for more precise alignment and symmetry improvements but does not involve true skeletal expansion. Despite the similarities in results, a larger number of prospective clinical studies would be desirable to confirm these findings and evaluate the practical aspects of treatment, such as overall duration, patient acceptance, and long-term effects. Additionally, expanding the sample size would help to generate more generalizable results, a better understanding of the differences between devices, and identify factors that may influence the choice between aligners and elastodontic devices. Both elastodontic devices and clear aligners are removable appliances, and thus, their effectiveness and overall treatment duration depend significantly on patient compliance.