Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite: Retention (restoration loss)
At 24 months, retention did not differ significantly between the composites (6 studies; ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Retention (restoration loss) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 24 months, Posterior class I/II restorations in permanent teeth; multicenter randomized controlled trials conducted across Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East At 24 months, retention did not differ significantly between the composites (6 studies; ungraded). Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) All outcomes | Six articles assessed restoration retention after 24 months; four showed no loss of retention in either group and two favored the control group, with no difference in the overall meta-analytic effect. | 6 studies | GRADE not reported |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Retention (restoration loss) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 12 months, Posterior class I/II restorations in permanent teeth; multicenter randomized controlled trials conducted across Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East Retention at 12 months did not differ significantly between low polymerization shrinkage and methacrylate composites (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.09; Moderate certainty). Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) All outcomes | OR 0.83 [0.33, 2.09] | 11 studies · 1834 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage resin in comparison to… 2018 All outcomes | Not specified | 23 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.