Own brand label restorative materials-A false bargain?

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