ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effects of different iron preparations on the color stability of restorative materials: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effects of different iron preparations on the color stability of two restorative materials.
methodsTwo restorative materials, a compomer (Dyract XP) and a universal composite resin (Filtek Z250), were evaluated. Ninety-six disc-shaped specimens (8 mm × 2 mm) were prepared and divided into four subgroups according to the iron preparation used (Bestiron, Ocean Microfer, Fermix, and Ferrum) (n = 12). Specimens were immersed daily for 2 min over 28 days. Color differences (ΔE₀₀) were calculated using the CIEDE2000 formula. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA (p < 0.05).
resultsThe effects of restorative material, iron preparation, and their interaction on color change were significant (p < 0.001). The lowest ΔE₀₀ was observed in Ocean Microfer-compomer (0.75 ± 0.40), whereas the highest values were found in Bestiron-compomer (4.54 ± 1.52) and Fermix-compomer (4.29 ± 1.45). Only the Ocean Microfer compomer and Ocean Microfer composite groups remained within the clinical acceptability threshold (ΔE₀₀ ≤ 1.8).
conclusionBoth restorative material type and iron preparation affected color stability. Among the iron preparations evaluated in this study, Ocean Microfer remained below the clinical acceptability threshold in both restorative materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.