ArticleCureus2026
Clinical Color Match and Marginal Discoloration of a Universal Shade Composite Versus a Multi-shade Nanohybrid Composite in Anterior Teeth.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnterior composite restorations require precise color matching and long-term marginal integrity to achieve optimal esthetic outcome. The introduction of structurally colored single‑shade composites such as Omnichroma (Tokuyama Dental Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) has simplified shade selection by utilizing clinical color match (CCM), although their long-term clinical performance relative to conventional multi‑shade composites remains uncertain. The present observational study aimed to compare the CCM and marginal discoloration of a structurally colored universal‑shade composite (Omnichroma) with those of a conventional multi‑shade nanohybrid composite (Beautifil MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective observational clinical study included 100 anterior restorations (50 per material) placed in 50 patients according to the inclusion criteria. Some participants contributed more than one restoration; therefore, the restoration was considered the primary unit of analysis. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at one, three, six, nine, and 12 months using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) for restoration appearance (CCM) and marginal integrity (marginal discoloration). Inter‑examiner agreement was assessed using Fleiss' kappa. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEE) and cumulative link mixed models, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsFor restoration appearance, Omnichroma demonstrated significantly higher clinically acceptable (Alpha+Bravo) rates from six months onward (98% vs. 92% at six months; 94% vs. 80% at 12 months; p < 0.01). The odds ratio for maintaining a clinically acceptable appearance (Charlie) with Beautifil II was 3.42 (95% CI: 1.38-8.47, p = 0.008). For marginal integrity, no statistically significant differences were observed between the materials at any time point, with identical Charlie rates (6%) at 12 months (p > 0.05). Inter‑examiner agreement was substantial to almost perfect (κ = 0.79-0.84).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this 12‑month observational study, the structurally colored universal‑shade composite (Omnichroma) provided superior CCM compared to the conventional multi‑shade nanohybrid composite (Beautifil II), while both materials exhibited equivalent marginal integrity. Omnichroma simplifies the restorative workflow without compromising the marginal seal, making it a favorable option for anterior Class III and IV restorations.
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.