Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anthropogenic pressure on water resources is affecting aquatic systems, requiring ecological analysis and restoration. This study proposes a new approach to assessing public perceptions of these activities. The methodology used is based on a structured questionnaire that looks at the general perception of the research topic, the economic readiness for community involvement and the identification of institutional mechanisms to implement river restoration measures. We used random sampling, guaranteeing results with a margin of error of 4.33%. The results show that the public and practitioners have different perspectives, and this can influence river restoration solutions, as they will contribute to a change in the way that longitudinally connected river restoration solutions are designed and implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]