To develop a risk of bias tool for pre-clinical dental materials research studies that aims to support reporting of future investigations and improve assessment in systematic reviews. A four-stage process following EQUATOR network recommendations was followed, which included project launch, literature review, Delphi process and the tool finalization. With the support of the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD) and the Dental Materials Group of the International Association for Dental Research (DMG-IADR), a total of 26 expert stakeholders were included in the development and Delphi vote of the initial proposal. The proposal was built using data gathered from the literature review stage. During this stage, recent systematic reviews featuring dental materials research, and risk of bias tools found in the literature were comprehensively scanned for bias sources. The experts thus reached a consensus for the items, domains and judgement related to the tool, allowing a detailed guide for each item and corresponding signalling questions. The tool features nine items in total, spread between 4 domains, pertaining to the following types of bias: bias related to planning and allocation (D1), specimen preparation (D2), outcome assessment (D3) and data treatment and outcome reporting (D4). RoBDEMAT, as presented, features signalling questions and a guide that can be used for RoB judgement. Its use as a checklist is preferred over a final summary score. RoBDEMAT is the first risk of bias tool for pre-clinical dental materials research, supported and developed by a broad group of expert stakeholders in the field, validating its future use. This new tool will contribute the study field by improving the scientific quality and rigour of dental materials research studies and their systematic reviews. Such studies are the foundation and support of future clinical research and evidence-based decisions.

Background: This systematic review aims to evaluate the color stability of resin composite CAD/CAM blocks (CCB) when submitted to staining solutions. Methods: A systematic search was performed on different databases (Embase, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science). Search terms were: ‘polymer infiltrated’, ‘polymer-based’, ‘resin nanoceramic’, ‘resin ceramic’, ‘hybrid composite’, ‘hybrid ceramic’, ‘composite ceramic’, ‘resin infiltrated’, ‘CAD-CAM’, ‘CAD/CAM’, ‘color stability’, ‘staining’, ‘staining susceptibility’, ‘color change’, ‘color difference’. Inclusion criteria: in vitro articles published in the English language until 18 September 2022 without initial time restriction evaluating the color stability of CCB when submitted to staining solutions. Exclusion criteria: studies investigating color change induced by smoke or whitening treatments; studies not including a clinical evaluation of the results using the thresholds for color perceptibility and acceptability. Risk of bias assessment using the QUIN tool. Findings: Out of the 378 initially retrieved articles, 19 were included in this review. They investigated 17 different CCBs and different artificial staining by liquid protocols, including coffee, red wine, tea, and cola. CCBs exceeded clinical acceptability thresholds for color shift in 18 out of 19 studies, with a significantly higher color stability than conventional hybrid resin-based composites (RBCs), and a significantly lower color stability than ceramic materials. The identified differences in CCBs in color stability can be attributed to the material’s composition, but also to the heterogeneity of staining procedures. Interpretation and clinical implication: Clinicians should be aware that, although to a lower degree when compared to RBCs used in direct or indirect procedures, CCBs undergo color changes to a higher degree in comparison to ceramic materials.