Basal cell adenocarcinoma, considered to be the malignant counterpart of basal cell adenoma, is a rare, low-grade malignant tumor of the salivary glands, accounting for 1-2% of salivary gland malignancies. It predominantly affects the parotid gland, while involvement of the minor salivary glands is exceptionally rare. This report presented a case of basal cell adenocarcinoma involving the left retromolar trigone in a 54-year-old woman. The initial provisional diagnosis suggested a benign or low-grade malignant salivary tumor. Advanced magnetic resonance imagingtechniques, including diffusion-weighted imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient analysis, aided in the preoperative prediction of malignancy, and an incisional biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of basal cell adenocarcinoma. This caseunderscored the challenge of distinguishing basal cell adenocarcinoma from benign salivary tumors, as clinical and imaging features often overlap. Surgical excision remains the primary treatment, yielding favorable outcomes;however, long-term follow-up is crucial due to the risk of recurrence.

Basal cell adenocarcinoma, considered to be the malignant counterpart of basal cell adenoma, is a rare, low-grade malignant tumor of the salivary glands, accounting for 1-2% of salivary gland malignancies. It predominantly affects the parotid gland, while involvement of the minor salivary glands is exceptionally rare. This report presented a case of basal cell adenocarcinoma involving the left retromolar trigone in a 54-year-old woman. The initial provisional diagnosis suggested a benign or low-grade malignant salivary tumor. Advanced magnetic resonance imagingtechniques, including diffusion-weighted imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient analysis, aided in the preoperative prediction of malignancy, and an incisional biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of basal cell adenocarcinoma. This caseunderscored the challenge of distinguishing basal cell adenocarcinoma from benign salivary tumors, as clinical and imaging features often overlap. Surgical excision remains the primary treatment, yielding favorable outcomes;however, long-term follow-up is crucial due to the risk of recurrence.

Basal cell adenocarcinoma, considered to be the malignant counterpart of basal cell adenoma, is a rare, low-grade malignant tumor of the salivary glands, accounting for 1-2% of salivary gland malignancies. It predominantly affects the parotid gland, while involvement of the minor salivary glands is exceptionally rare. This report presented a case of basal cell adenocarcinoma involving the left retromolar trigone in a 54-year-old woman. The initial provisional diagnosis suggested a benign or low-grade malignant salivary tumor. Advanced magnetic resonance imagingtechniques, including diffusion-weighted imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient analysis, aided in the preoperative prediction of malignancy, and an incisional biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of basal cell adenocarcinoma. This caseunderscored the challenge of distinguishing basal cell adenocarcinoma from benign salivary tumors, as clinical and imaging features often overlap. Surgical excision remains the primary treatment, yielding favorable outcomes;however, long-term follow-up is crucial due to the risk of recurrence.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the number of roots and type of root canals in maxillary first and secondpremolars within a selected Korean population utilizing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Additionally, it sought to investigate potential differences in these features according to sex and tooth type. Materials and Methods: CBCT images of 585 maxillary first premolars and 578 maxillary second premolars from303 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The number of roots was classified based on root morphology, andcanal configurations were categorized into 8 types according to the Vertucci classification. For statistical analysis, chi-square or Fisher exact tests were employed to compare root number and canal morphology according to sex andtooth type. Results: CBCT analysis revealed that 71.5% of maxillary first premolars and 97.6% of maxillary second premolars had 1 root. The most common canal configuration in maxillary first premolars was Vertucci type IV (42.6%), whereas type I predominated in maxillary second premolars (76.5%). Significant differences in root number and canal configurations were found between men and women (P<0.05), with single roots and Vertucci type I canals more commonly observed in women. Conclusion Both maxillary first premolars and maxillary second premolars typically had 1 root, with a smaller percentage possessing 2 roots. Significant sex differences were observed in root number and canal type. This study highlights the variability in root number and canal configuration, emphasizing the importance of recognizing thesevariations to achieve successful endodontic treatment.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the number of roots and type of root canals in maxillary first and secondpremolars within a selected Korean population utilizing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Additionally, it sought to investigate potential differences in these features according to sex and tooth type. Materials and Methods: CBCT images of 585 maxillary first premolars and 578 maxillary second premolars from303 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The number of roots was classified based on root morphology, andcanal configurations were categorized into 8 types according to the Vertucci classification. For statistical analysis, chi-square or Fisher exact tests were employed to compare root number and canal morphology according to sex andtooth type. Results: CBCT analysis revealed that 71.5% of maxillary first premolars and 97.6% of maxillary second premolars had 1 root. The most common canal configuration in maxillary first premolars was Vertucci type IV (42.6%), whereas type I predominated in maxillary second premolars (76.5%). Significant differences in root number and canal configurations were found between men and women (P<0.05), with single roots and Vertucci type I canals more commonly observed in women. Conclusion Both maxillary first premolars and maxillary second premolars typically had 1 root, with a smaller percentage possessing 2 roots. Significant sex differences were observed in root number and canal type. This study highlights the variability in root number and canal configuration, emphasizing the importance of recognizing thesevariations to achieve successful endodontic treatment.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the number of roots and type of root canals in maxillary first and secondpremolars within a selected Korean population utilizing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Additionally, it sought to investigate potential differences in these features according to sex and tooth type. Materials and Methods: CBCT images of 585 maxillary first premolars and 578 maxillary second premolars from303 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The number of roots was classified based on root morphology, andcanal configurations were categorized into 8 types according to the Vertucci classification. For statistical analysis, chi-square or Fisher exact tests were employed to compare root number and canal morphology according to sex andtooth type. Results: CBCT analysis revealed that 71.5% of maxillary first premolars and 97.6% of maxillary second premolars had 1 root. The most common canal configuration in maxillary first premolars was Vertucci type IV (42.6%), whereas type I predominated in maxillary second premolars (76.5%). Significant differences in root number and canal configurations were found between men and women (P<0.05), with single roots and Vertucci type I canals more commonly observed in women. Conclusion Both maxillary first premolars and maxillary second premolars typically had 1 root, with a smaller percentage possessing 2 roots. Significant sex differences were observed in root number and canal type. This study highlights the variability in root number and canal configuration, emphasizing the importance of recognizing thesevariations to achieve successful endodontic treatment.