Own brand label restorative materials-A false bargain?

Objectives: This study aims at evaluating and comparing mechanical, chemical, and cytotoxicological parameters of a commercial brand name composite material against two 'own brand label' (OBL) composites.

Methods: Parameters included depth of cure, flexural strength, degree of conversion, polymerization shrinkage, filler particle morphology and elemental analyzes, Vickers hardness, surface roughness parameters after abrasion, monomer elution, and cytotoxicity.

Results: The conventional composite outperformed the OBLS in terms of depth of cure (p<0.001), degree of cure at the first and last time intervals (p<0.001), hardness (p<0.001), and post-abrasion roughness (p<0.05). The polymerization volumetric shrinkage ranged from 2.86% to 4.13%, with the highest shrinkage seen among the OBLs. Both Monomer elution from the OBLs was statistically significantly higher (p<0.001). Statistically significantly higher cytotoxicity combined with altered morphology and loss of confluence was detected in the cells exposed to extracts from the OBLs.

Conclusions: The OBLs were in general outdone by the conventional composite.

Clinical Significance: OBLs restorative materials have become pervasive in the dental market. Manufacturers often promise equal or better characteristics than existing brand-name composites, but at a lower price. Dentists are highly recommended to reconsider utilization of OBLs lacking sound scientific scrutiny, and our findings underscore this recommendation.