Purpose: The brush-on technique is frequently used for applying autopolymerized resin during chairside denture repair and adjusting individual tooth trays. This study evaluated the handling efficiency of autopolymerized resin applied using this technique.
Materials and Methods: Five autopolymerized resins, Unifast II (GC), Unifast Trad (GC), Provinice (Shofu), Metafast (Sun Medical), and Miky (Nissin), were used in this study. Five operators (one dental technician, two dentists, and two dental students; ages 23-51) fabricated round resin pieces, approximately 6 mm in diameter, from the five autopolymerized resins on a pasteboard in one procedure. Four different brushes were tested; a calligraphy brush (cat hair, Naokatsu), two resin brushes (nylon fiber and horsehair, Seiundo), and a bristle brush (weasel hair, Shofu). After polymerization, the resin pieces were weighed on an electric balance. The handling behavior (n=5) was assessed by the coefficient of variation (%) of the weight and analyzed by ANOVA/Tukey’s test (α=0.05). After the test, all the operators completed a questionnaire about fabricating the resin pieces.
Results: Although significant differences were found among the operators (p<0.05), there were no significant differences among all the resins and brushes tested (p>0.05). However, the horsehair resin brush tended to have greater coefficients of variation. The results of the questionnaire indicated that Unifast II and the calligraphy brush were preferred by the operators.
Conclusion: The handling efficiency of the autopolymerized resin using the brush-on technique depended on the skill of the operators rather than the resins and brushes.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of tooth-colored crown restorations made of a highly loaded indirect composite material.
Materials and Methods: A total of 17 restorations made of the Estenia indirect composite were clinically evaluated on the basis of the modified USPHS criteria. Color match, marginal integrity, surface texture, wear of restoration as well as antagonist, recurrent dental caries, fracture/detachment, and gingivitis around the abutments were examined. The observation period varied from 50 to 125 months with an average of 87.5 months.
Results: All restorations were judged as Alfa for all categories at baseline. After an average observation period of 87.5 months, the following cases were judged as Bravo; eight for surface texture, one for wear, five for wear of the metallic antagonists, and one for gingival inflammation. Fracture of the restoration was detected in one case. Problems associated with color match, marginal integrity, wear of enamel antagonists, and recurrent dental caries were not observed in any patients.
Conclusion: Within the limitation of current evaluation, it can be concluded that the expected service period of the indirect restorations made of the Estenia composite is five years or more.