(1) Background: Due to the limitations of composite cements, the authors carried out tests to compare such materials with preheated composite materials because the latter may be an alternative to cements in the adhesive cementation procedure. (2) Methods: The materials used in the adhesive cementation procedure, i.e., Enamel Plus Hri (Micerium, Avegno, Italy), a heated composite material, and RelyX U200 Automix (3M, Maplewood, MN, USA), a dual composite cement, were tested for microhardness, compressive strength, flexural strength, diametral compressive strength, and elastic modulus. Composite material was heated to the temperature of 50 degrees Celsius before polymerisation. (3) Results: Higher values of microhardness (by 67.36%), compressive strength (by 41.84%), elastic modulus (by 17.75%), flexural strength (by 36.03%), and diametral compressive strength (by 45.52%) were obtained using the Enamel Plus Hri composite material compared to the RelyX U200 self-adhesive cement. The survey results revealed statistically significant differences. (4) Conclusions: Due to its better mechanical properties, the heated composite material (Enamel Plus Hri) is a beneficial alternative to composite cements in the indirect restoration placement procedure. As the strength parameters of the heated composite material increase, a higher resistance to the compressive and bending forces present in the oral cavity, and hence a greater durability of the created prosthetic reconstructions can be expected.

Background: Prosthetic rehabilitation for children and juvenile patients with congenital or acquired craniofacial disorders is the area of activity of many clinicians and is a major diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for dentists. Methods: Studies were carried out on a group of 30 patients (10 female and 20 male) aged 2.5 to 30 years who were treated prosthetically due to congenital and acquired craniofacial disorders. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of life using the CPQ 11-14 (Child Perception Questionnaire 11-14), OQLQ (Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire), and PIDAQ (Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire). Results: Before the prosthetic treatments, the mean values in the individual questionnaires were, respectively, CPQ 11-14—54 points; OQLQ—44.4 points; and PIDAQ—47.6 points. The following values were obtained after the treatments: CPQ 11-14—12.43 points; OQLQ—22.27 points; and PIDAQ—34.03 points. All obtained differences were statistically significant. Conclusions: The total numerical results obtained in all questionnaires decreased, which means that prosthetic rehabilitation had a positive impact on the assessment of the quality of life based on individual categories.