The meta- analysis of the data in the included studies demonstrated that only one variable ( marginal adaptation after 12 months ) showed statistically significant outcomes , in which methacrylates-based composites presented significantly better results than resin composites containing modified monomers .
The good level of the scientific evidence as well as the overall low risk of bias of the included studies indicate that composites with silorane , ormocer or bulk-fill type modified monomers have a clinical performance similar to conventional resin composites
Polymerization shrinkage of resin composite can compromise the longevity of restorations .
To minimize this problem , the monomeric composition of composites have been modified .
The objective of this study was to conduct a meta- analysis to assess the clinical behavior of restorations performed with low polymerization shrinkage resin composite  in comparison with traditional methacrylates-based resin composite .
Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Composite resins are still outperformed by amalgams in the clinical practice with secondary caries and fractures being their most common failures . A material that suffers less polymerization shrinkage might improve the clinical performance of composite resins . PURPOSE To evaluate the clinical performance of a low-shrink silorane-based composite resin ( Filtek LS Low Shrink Posterior Restorative , 3 M ESPE , St. Paul , MN , USA ) in comparison with a methacrylate-based composite resin ( Tetric EvoCeram , Ivoclar Vivadent , Schaan , Principality of Liechtenstein ) over time . MATERIAL S AND METHODS C and i date s in need of Class II composite resin restorations participated in this r and omized controlled clinical trial . Those were 25 female and six male subjects with average age of 44.3 ± 12.7 years . Participants received 82 restorations , being 54 in premolars and 28 in molars . Procedures , which included the restoration of primary caries lesions or replacement of failing restorations , were done using modified preparations with no bevels or additional retention . Restorations were placed using Filtek LS ( and dedicated self-etch adhesive ) or Tetric EvoCeram ( with AdheSE , Ivoclar Vivadent ) , following manufacturers ' instructions . Incremental placement technique was applied and the restorations were immediately finished . Follow-up evaluations occurred at six , 12 , 24 , and 36 months and were done using the Fédération Dentaire Internationale criteria . Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations . RESULTS The recall rate at 36 months was 89 % . All interaction terms were not significant . CONCLUSIONS Filtek LS performs as well  as Tetric EvoCeram performs in the clinical setting at 36 months . CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The silorane-based composite resin Filtek LS and the conventional methacrylate-based composite resin Tetric EvoCeram performed similarly well in posterior restorations over at least 36 months of clinical service
The meta- analysis of the data in the included studies demonstrated that only one variable ( marginal adaptation after 12 months ) showed statistically significant outcomes , in which methacrylates-based composites presented significantly better results than resin composites containing modified monomers .
The good level of the scientific evidence as well as the overall low risk of bias of the included studies indicate that composites with silorane , ormocer or bulk-fill type modified monomers have a clinical performance similar to conventional resin composites
Polymerization shrinkage of resin composite can compromise the longevity of restorations .
To minimize this problem , the monomeric composition of composites have been modified .
The objective of this study was to conduct a meta- analysis to assess the clinical behavior of restorations performed with low polymerization shrinkage resin composite  in comparison with traditional methacrylates-based resin composite .