One year clinical follow up of a silorane-based versus a methacrylate-based composite resin

Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage resin in comparison to methacrylate composite resin

“…Fifteen studies evaluated marginal adaptation after 12 months, with one study [ 17 ] presenting three experimental groups, and another [ 40 ] two experimental groups, totaling 18 experimental groups ( Fig 4 ). Among the 18 groups, 12 presented results that favored the control group (conventional composite), [ 19 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 41 ] two that favored the experimental group (resins with modified monomers) [ 32 , 35 ], one that did not favor any of the groups, since results were similar for both groups [ 29 ], two presented no marginal adaptation alterations in both groups [ 17 , 26 ], and one study reported that all restorations in both groups demonstrated some sort of marginal adaptation alteration [ 38 ]. Meta-analysis demonstrated that at the 12-month follow-up assessment, the overall effect of methacrylates-based composite resins was significantly better than the ormocer, silorane and bulk-fill composites (p = 0.001).…”

“…Fourteen articles evaluated the presence of secondary caries in the restorations after 12 months, one [ 17 ] with three experimental groups, totaling 16 groups ( Fig 6 ). Nine studies demonstrated no secondary caries, neither in the experimental group nor in the control group [ 25 – 27 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 41 ]. One study presented results favoring the experimental group [ 17 ], while the other six favored the control group [ 17 , 28 , 34 , 37 , 39 ].…”

“…One study [ 17 ] presented three experimental groups, and another [ 40 ] two experimental groups. From the 16 groups, eight favored the control group [ 17 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 34 , 40 ], five favored the experimental group [ 17 , 29 , 34 , 37 , 41 ], and one presented the same results for both groups [ 17 ]. Two studies presented no marginal discoloration in both groups [ 26 , 35 ].…”

“…Eleven articles evaluated retention of composite restorations after 12 months; one [ 17 ] with three experimental groups ( Fig 9 ). From the 13 groups analyzed, seven presented no loss of retention in either group [ 17 , 26 , 27 , 33 , 34 , 41 ], three favored the control group [ 17 , 34 , 37 ], two favored the experimental group [ 25 , 28 ], and one presented an outcome that did not favor any of the groups [ 32 ]. However, the meta-analysis of the studies indicated no statistically significant differences in the overall effect (p = 0.69).…”