Question · asked by 1 review
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite: Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration)
At 60 months, marginal adaptation did not differ significantly between the composites (4 groups; 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 Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 60 months, Posterior class I/II restorations in permanent teeth; multicenter randomized controlled trials conducted across Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East At 60 months, marginal adaptation did not differ significantly between the composites (4 groups; ungraded). Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) All outcomes | Three articles (four experimental groups) evaluated marginal adaptation after 60 months; two favored the experimental group but the overall meta-analytic effect was not statistically significant. | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 36 months, Posterior class I/II restorations in permanent teeth; multicenter randomized controlled trials conducted across Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East At 36 months, marginal adaptation did not differ significantly between the composites (6 groups; ungraded). Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) All outcomes | Five articles (six experimental groups) evaluated marginal adaptation after 36 months; results were mixed and the overall meta-analytic effect was not statistically significant. | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 18 months, Posterior class I/II restorations in permanent teeth; multicenter randomized controlled trials conducted across Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East At 18 months, marginal adaptation did not differ significantly between low polymerization shrinkage and methacrylate composites (2 studies; not statistically significant; ungraded). Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) All outcomes | Only two studies, both testing silorane composites, evaluated marginal adaptation after 18 months; one favored the experimental group and one the control group, and the overall meta-analytic effect was not… | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration) · 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 Conventional methacrylate composites had significantly better 12-month marginal adaptation than low polymerization shrinkage composites (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.50; Moderate certainty). Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) All outcomes | OR 1.77 [1.25, 2.50] | 15 studies · 2280 participants | GRADE not reported |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration) · 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, marginal adaptation did not differ significantly between the composites (8 groups; p = 0.11; ungraded). Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) All outcomes | Odds ratio (OR) 1.46 [0.92, 2.33] | 7 studies | 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.