Background: Removable prostheses have seen a fundamental change recently because of advances in polymer materials, allowing improved durability and performance. Despite these advancements, notable differences still occur amongst various polymer materials and processing technologies, requiring a thorough grasp of their mechanical, physical, and therapeutic implications. The compressive strength of dentures manufactured using various technologies will be investigated. Methods: Traditional, injection molding, and additive and subtractive CAD/CAM processing techniques, all utilizing Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) as the main material, were used to construct complete dentures. The specimens underwent a compressive mechanical test, which reveals the differences in compressive strength. Results: All the specimens broke under the influence of a certain force, rather than yielding through flow, as is characteristic for plastic materials. For each specimen, the maximum force (N) was recorded, as well as the breaking energy. The mean force required to break the dentures for each processing technology is as follows: 4.54 kN for traditional packing-press technique, 17.92 kN for the injection molding technique, 1.51 kN for the additive CAD/CAM dentures, and 5.9 kN for the subtractive CAD/CAM dentures. Conclusions: The best results were obtained in the case of the thermoplastic injection system and the worst results were recorded in the case of 3D printed samples. Another important aspect depicted is the standard deviation for each group, which reveal a relatively unstable property for the thermoplastic injected dentures. Good results here in terms of absolute property and stability of the property can be conferred to CAD/CAM milled group.

Background: Removable prostheses have seen a fundamental change recently because of advances in polymer materials, allowing improved durability and performance. Despite these advancements, notable differences still occur amongst various polymer materials and processing technologies, requiring a thorough grasp of their mechanical, physical, and therapeutic implications. Methods: Fours different processing techniques, all utilizing Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) as the main material, were used to construct complete dentures. The specimens underwent a mechanical test. Results: All the specimens broke under the influence of a certain force, rather than yielding through flow, as is characteristic for plastic materials. For each specimen, the maximum force (N) was recorded (figure 4), as well as the breaking energy, Conclusions: The best results were obtained in the case of the thermoplastic injection system and, surprisingly and contrary to those in the specialized literature, the worst results were recorded in the case of 3D printed samples.

Background: COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory disease, but increasing evidence suggests possible oral and maxillofacial complications. This study presents a case series of post-COVID maxillary osteonecrosis (PC-RONJ) cases from western Romania and explores the possible association between SARS-CoV-2 infection, its treatment, and this complication. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective case series of two patients with recent PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who subsequently developed maxillary osteonecrosis (ONC) between 2021 and 2023. Clinical examination, CT imaging (including 3D reconstructions), and ENT assessment were used to assess the severity of the disease. All medical records were reviewed to identify comorbidities, details of COVID-19 treatment, and the appearance of maxillofacial symptoms. Results: Both patients had been hospitalized for severe COVID-19 and treated according to the national protocol with systemic corticosteroids, oxygen therapy, anticoagulation, and antivirals. CT scans revealed marked osteolytic destruction of the maxilla and maxillary sinus walls, with extension toward adjacent facial bones. Microbiological analysis revealed a complex polymicrobial profile, including Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria as well as opportunistic fungal species, consistent with a chronic biofilm-associated infectious process. Patients received surgical treatment, followed by local care and, in both cases, prosthetic rehabilitation with maxillary obturators, which improved speech, chewing, and oral function. Conclusions: This case series suggests a possible association between severe COVID-19, its treatment, and subsequent maxillary osteonecrosis in susceptible patients; however, the small number of cases precludes causal inference. To our knowledge, this is the first Romanian report describing such cases in patients without prior antiresorptive therapy. These findings highlight the need for careful use of systemic corticosteroids and vigilant post-recovery monitoring of maxillofacial complications. Further studies are required to clarify the underlying mechanisms and risk factors.

A load ceiling can obscure manufacturing-related differences in cobalt–chromium framework testing. This exploratory in vitro pilot analyzed ten frameworks: five cast and five fabricated by selective laser melting (SLM). The documented protocol used a hemispherical indenter at 1 mm/min after a 100 N preload. Cast specimens fractured at 938.53–1134.63 N (mean 1012.47 ± 77.40 N); SLM specimens remained macroscopically intact at 4498.36–4501.34 N and were right-censored. At the common observed limit of 4498.36 N, the capped mean contrast was 3485.89 N, with a 4.44 ratio and a two-sided exact permutation p-value of 0.00794. Single-specimen deletion changed the contrast by at most 0.876%. Exact 95% failure-probability intervals were 47.8–100% for casting and 0–52.2% for SLM. Bayesian direction favored SLM across three symmetric priors, while magnitude remained prior-sensitive. With five reported displacements per workflow, terminal displacement was 1.459 ± 0.357 mm for casting and 2.048 ± 0.134 mm for SLM. The five calculated SLM terminal secants averaged 2155.16 ± 139.28 N/mm; different endpoint forces preclude a matched-force stiffness comparison. The findings support independent validation; censored outcomes, unavailable raw traces, and unknown batch structure limit population and causal interpretation.