View more from Listerine
Switch to Dark theme

The evidence base for ‘own label’ resin-based dental restoratives

From Volume 40, Issue 1, January 2013 | Pages 5-6

Abstract

There is anecdotal evidence that sales of ‘own-label’ (OL) or ‘private label’ dental products is increasing, as dentists become more cost conscious in times of economic downturn. However, the purchase of such (less expensive) products could be a false economy if their performance falls below accepted standards. So, while the examination of a resin-based product under research conditions alone may not guarantee success, it could be considered that a material which has been subjected to testing under research conditions will demonstrate its effectiveness under laboratory conditions or reveal its shortcomings; either of these being better than the material not being examined in any way. It was therefore considered appropriate to determine the materials on which research was carried out, with particular reference to OL brands.

Objective: To determine whether there is a research base behind OL resin-based restorative dental materials.

Article

Methods

The abstract memory stick for the IADR meeting in March 2011 in San Diego was examined. All abstracts included in the ‘Dentine adhesives’ and ‘Composite’ sections were read in full and examined in order to identify the names of products mentioned in the abstracts. These were recorded and tabulated. Any product which did not state the manufacturer was further investigated by an internet search.

Results

A total of 189 abstracts from the IADR classification ‘dentine adhesives’ were identified, although 31 of these did not mention specific bonding agents and two were on light-curing units. The results indicated that 84 different types of bonding agent (note that some of these may be discounted as some manufacturers may name the same bonding agent differently for different markets) had been subjected to research in the remaining 156 abstracts. A total of 353 bonding agents were tested in these abstracts. The most frequently researched bonding agents are presented in Table 1. Four materials did not specify their manufacturer, so these materials were investigated further in an internet search and their manufacturers identified. No OL brands were identified during the search.


Product Name Number of Mentions in Research Abstracts
Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) 40
Scotchbond Multipurpose (3M ESPE) 29
Adper Easy Bond (3M ESPE) 17
Optibond Solo (Kerr) 17
Prompt L Pop (3M ESPE) 10
Optibond FL (Kerr) 10
Optibond all-in-one (Kerr) 10

The same exercise was carried out for 255 ‘composite’ abstracts. Of these, 44 did not state the type of composite tested, eight were on the subject of light curing, one was on the subject of FTIR and one on veneering porcelain. In the remaining 201 abstracts, there were 601 occasions when the name and manufacturer of the resin composite was stated. Most frequently mentioned materials are presented in Table 2. Nine materials did not specify their manufacturer, so these materials were investigated further in an internet search and their manufacturers identified. No OL brands were identified during the search.


Product Name Number of Mentions in Research Abstracts
Filtek Supreme/Z350 (3M ESPE) 51
Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) 35
Filtek Z100 (3M ESPE) 18
Venus Diamond (Heraeus Kulzer) 18
EsthetX (Dentsply) 18
Kalore (GC) 17
Premise (Kerr) 12
Grandio (Voco) 10
Gradia Direct (GC) 10

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, which nevertheless involved the reading of 444 IADR abstracts as a source of ‘evidence’, there was no evidence of any OL product being subjected to testing in a research study. Further work is now indicated to provide ‘evidence’ for the effectiveness of these materials, by laboratory and, ideally, clinical evaluation of ‘own label’ brands of resin-based restorative dental products.