No abstract available.
Angiomyoma* ; Mucous Membrane*

No abstract available.
Dentures* ; Mucous Membrane*

No abstract available.
Mucous Membrane* ; Pigmentation*

No abstract available.
Hemorrhoidectomy* ; Mucous Membrane*

No abstract available.
Fever* ; Mucous Membrane* ; Tongue*

No abstract available.
Animals ; Mucous Membrane* ; Rats*

No abstract available.
Coal* ; Mucous Membrane*

No abstract available.
Mucous Membrane* ; Muramidase* ; Turbinates*

As effective modalities to improve the stability of peri-implant hard and soft tissue, keratinized mucosa augmentation has increasingly been applied in daily practice. Nonetheless, there is still lack of in-depth comprehensive discussion regarding the surgical risk factors, the decision-making strategy and the surgical principle. In this article, three routine procedures of peri-implant keratinized mucosa augmentation were introduced. The surgical principles were deeply discussed and summarized with five key principles. Based on the risk assessment of local factors, the effects of which were analyzed on keratinized mucosa augmentation comprehensively, the authors proposed a decision-making protocol for selection of surgical procedures in the end, intending to provide guidelines for clinical application.
Dental Implants ; Mucous Membrane

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Sulglycotide is a sulphoglycopeptide with antiulcer and cytoprotective activity that is derived from the porcine duodenal mucosa. This study carried out a 3-week single blinded, randomized, multicenter, noninferiority trial to compare the efficacy of oral sulglycotide in treating symptomatic erosive gastritis with that of rebamipide. METHODS: Seventy-three patients with symptomatic erosive gastritis were randomized to receive 3 weeks of treatment with either sulglycotide or rebamipide. The primary efficacy parameter was the endoscopic cure rate and the endoscopic improvement rate, and the secondary parameter was the improvement rate in the dyspepsia symptom scores. RESULTS: Of the 73 patients recruited, 36 received sulglycotide and 37 received rebamipide. The endoscopic cure rate in the sulgycotide and rebamipide group was 29.6% and 25.0% according to per protocol (PP) analysis, respectively (p=0.69). The endoscopic improvement rate in the sulglycotide and rebamipide group was 63.0% and 62.5% according to PP analysis, respectively (p=0.97). The symptomatic improvement rate in the sulgycotide and rebamipide group was 51.9% and 53.1% according to PP analysis, respectively (p=0.74). The result of 90% CIs for the difference in endoscopic cure rate, endoscopic improvement rate and symptom improvement rate between the two groups met the criteria for the non-inferiority of sulglycotide to rebamipide. CONCLUSIONS: Sulglycotide was not inferior to rebamipide in both erosion healing and symptom relief in patients with acute and chronic gastritis.
Dyspepsia ; Gastritis* ; Humans ; Mucous Membrane