Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

747 questions · 815 findings · 144 reviews

No studies found 154 · 18.9%GRADE not reported 147 · 18%Very low 164 · 20.1%Low 199 · 24.4%Moderate 121 · 14.8%High 30 · 3.7%

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

At 60 months, marginal adaptation did not differ significantly between the composites (4 groups; ungraded).

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Secondary caries · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

No secondary caries was reported at 24 months in any of seven studies, so no meta-analysis was possible (ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Marginal discoloration · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

At 24 months, marginal discoloration did not differ significantly (7 groups; p = 0.77; ungraded).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

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

At 24 months, retention did not differ significantly between the composites (6 studies; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Postoperative sensitivity · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

Postoperative sensitivity at 12 months did not differ significantly between low polymerization shrinkage and methacrylate composites (OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.81; Moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Treatment success (at 6 months) · children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Treatment success (at other time points) · children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO)

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes treatment success (at other time points) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Proportion of participants requiring secondary procedures · children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Cost‐effectiveness · children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Complications · children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review