BMC oral health · 2026
Effects of different iron preparations on the color stability of restorative materials: an in vitro study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sarimehmetoglu Nilge, Ozdemir Busra
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effects of different iron preparations on the color stability of two restorative materials.
METHODS: Two 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).
RESULTS: The 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).
CONCLUSION: Both 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.
METHODS: Two 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).
RESULTS: The 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).
CONCLUSION: Both 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.