PURPOSE: The laser processability of dental prosthesis is investigated using two ceramic composites, including 3M, Lava Ultimate and Ivoclar vivadent, IPS e.max. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CO₂ laser, picosecond laser and femtosecond laser are used to assess the processing power of dental prosthetic materials Lava Ultimate and IPS e.max and the line processing shape was measured using a confocal microscope. RESULTS: The brittleness, carbonization and micro crack of the ceramic composite were influenced by heat accumulation of the material and could be controlled by the laser power and pulse time. CONCLUSION: In the case of CO₂ lasers, micro crack and carbonation occurred immediately, and in the picosecond laser processing, the micro cracks are partially improved, but the carbonization occurs continuously. Finally, we confirmed the high efficiency of laser processing with femtosecond laser. In particular, Lava Ultimate, a ceramic resin composite material, showed the best processability when processed using a femtosecond laser.
Carbon ; Ceramics* ; Dental Prosthesis ; Hot Temperature ; Lasers, Gas

Objectives: We reviewed the operational definitions of colorectal cancer (CRC) from studies using the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) and compared CRC incidence derived from the commonly used operational definitions in the literature with the statistics reported by the Korea Central Cancer Registry (KCCR). Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and KoreaMed databases to identify studies containing operational definitions of CRC, published until January 15, 2021. All pertinent data concerning the study period, the utilized database, and the outcome variable were extracted. Within the NHIS-National Sample Cohort, age-standardized incidence rates (ASRs) of CRC were calculated for each operational definition found in the literature between 2005 and 2019. These rates were then compared with ASRs from the KCCR. Results: From the 62 eligible studies, 9 operational definitions for CRC were identified. The most commonly used operational definition was “C18-C20” (n=20), followed by “C18-C20 with claim code for treatment” (n=3) and “C18-C20 with V193 (code for registered cancer patients’ payment deduction)” (n=3). The ASRs reported using these operational definitions were lower than the ASRs from KCCR, except for “C18-C20 used as the main diagnosis.” The smallest difference in ASRs was observed for “C18-C20,” followed by “C18- C20 with V193,” and “C18-C20 with claim code for hospitalization or code for treatment.” Conclusions In defining CRC patients utilizing the NHIS database, the ASR derived through the operational definition of “C18-C20 as the main diagnosis” was comparable to the ASR from the KCCR. Depending on the study hypothesis, operational definitions using treatment codes may be utilized.

OBJECTIVES: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are rare but highly fatal. Although the etiology of BTC is poorly understood, gallstones are proposed to be a major risk factor. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the associations between gallstone characteristics and BTC risk. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases and systematically reviewed cohort and case-control studies published before April 9, 2018. All the included studies reported appropriate risk estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between the presence, size, number, or duration of gallstones and the risk of BTC, including gallbladder cancer (GBC), extrahepatic bile duct cancer (EBDC), and ampulla of Vater cancer (AOVC). Summary odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted to inspect sources of potential heterogeneity, and the Egger test was performed to assess publication bias. RESULTS: Seven cohort studies and 23 case-control studies in Asian, European, and American populations were included. The presence of gallstones was associated with an increased risk of BTC (OR, 4.38; 95% CI, 3.23 to 5.93; I2=91.2%), GBC (OR, 7.26; 95% CI, 4.33 to 12.18), EBDC (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 2.24 to 4.50), and AOVC (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.33 to 8.11). Gallstone size (>1 vs. <1 cm; OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.10 to 3.22) was significantly associated with the risk of GBC. CONCLUSIONS Gallstone characteristics, such as presence, size, and number, are associated with an increased risk of BTC. However, significantly high heterogeneity in the meta-analyses is a limitation of this study.

OBJECTIVES: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are rare but highly fatal. Although the etiology of BTC is poorly understood, gallstones are proposed to be a major risk factor. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the associations between gallstone characteristics and BTC risk. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases and systematically reviewed cohort and case-control studies published before April 9, 2018. All the included studies reported appropriate risk estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between the presence, size, number, or duration of gallstones and the risk of BTC, including gallbladder cancer (GBC), extrahepatic bile duct cancer (EBDC), and ampulla of Vater cancer (AOVC). Summary odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted to inspect sources of potential heterogeneity, and the Egger test was performed to assess publication bias. RESULTS: Seven cohort studies and 23 case-control studies in Asian, European, and American populations were included. The presence of gallstones was associated with an increased risk of BTC (OR, 4.38; 95% CI, 3.23 to 5.93; I2=91.2%), GBC (OR, 7.26; 95% CI, 4.33 to 12.18), EBDC (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 2.24 to 4.50), and AOVC (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.33 to 8.11). Gallstone size (>1 vs. <1 cm; OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.10 to 3.22) was significantly associated with the risk of GBC. CONCLUSIONS Gallstone characteristics, such as presence, size, and number, are associated with an increased risk of BTC. However, significantly high heterogeneity in the meta-analyses is a limitation of this study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.