Table 3. Summary of findings.

Low polymerization shrinkage restorations compared with methacrylate restorations for Clinical Behavior
Patient or population: People with permanent posterior teeth Intervention: Low polymerization shrinkage restorations Comparison: Methacrylate restorations
Outcomes	Relative effect (95% CI)	No of teeth (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)*
Marginal Adaptation 12 months	OR 1.77 (1.25 to 2.50)	2280 (18 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate [25–28,34,37, 38,40] ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high [17,29,30,32,33,35,41]
Marginal Discoloration 12 months	OR 1.53 (0.98 to 2.41)	2082 (16 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate [25–28,34,37,40] ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high[17,29,30,33,35,41]
Secondary Caries 12 months	OR 1.51 (0.64 to 3.57)	2087 (16 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate [25–28,34,37] ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high [17,29,30,32,33,35,39,41]
Retention 12 months	OR 0.83 (0.33 to 2.09)	1834 (13 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate [25–28,34,37] ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high[17,32,33,35,41]
Postoperative sensitivity 12 months	OR 1.65 (0.71 to 3.81)	970 (13 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate [25,33,34,36,38] ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high[17,29,31,32,37]

* GRADE Working Group grades of evidence:

High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.

Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.