Objectives: To evaluate changes in probing depth, bleeding on probing, and three-dimensional plaque distribution after using an interdental brush for three months. Methods: This was a split-mouth design, examiner-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Fifteen patients were randomly assigned to use an interdental brush between their maxillary left or right 1st and 2nd premolar. They were instructed not to use an interdental brush on the opposite side for three months. Probing depth, bleeding on probing, bleeding on using an interdental brush, gingival recession, and plaque distribution were assessed at baseline and after three months. Results: After using an interdental brush for three months, 4.26±15.16% of plaque on interdental surfaces decreased. Bleeding on probing and bleeding on using an interdental brush also decreased by 16.67% and 40%, respectively. The size of interdental areas increased by 0.16 mm when using an interdental brush. There were no statistically significant changes in probing depth or gingival recession. Conclusions An interdental brush is an effective interdental cleaning aid that reduces interdental plaque and decreases inflammation of interdental soft tissues.

Objectives: To evaluate changes in probing depth, bleeding on probing, and three-dimensional plaque distribution after using an interdental brush for three months. Methods: This was a split-mouth design, examiner-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Fifteen patients were randomly assigned to use an interdental brush between their maxillary left or right 1st and 2nd premolar. They were instructed not to use an interdental brush on the opposite side for three months. Probing depth, bleeding on probing, bleeding on using an interdental brush, gingival recession, and plaque distribution were assessed at baseline and after three months. Results: After using an interdental brush for three months, 4.26±15.16% of plaque on interdental surfaces decreased. Bleeding on probing and bleeding on using an interdental brush also decreased by 16.67% and 40%, respectively. The size of interdental areas increased by 0.16 mm when using an interdental brush. There were no statistically significant changes in probing depth or gingival recession. Conclusions An interdental brush is an effective interdental cleaning aid that reduces interdental plaque and decreases inflammation of interdental soft tissues.

Purpose: Developmentally regulated GTP-binding protein 2 (DRG2) regulates microtubule dynamics and G2/M arrest during docetaxel treatment. Poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) acts as an important repair system for DNA damage caused by docetaxel treatment. This study investigated whether DRG2 expression affects response to PARP inhibitors (olaparib) using prostate cancer cell lines PC3, DU145, LNCaP-FGC, and LNCaP-LN3. Materials and Methods: The cell viability and DRG2 expression levels were assessed using colorimetric-based cell viability assay and western blot. Cells were transfected with DRG2 siRNA, and pcDNA6/V5-DRG2 was used to overexpress DRG2. Flow cytometry was applied for cell cycle assay and apoptosis analysis using the Annexing V cell death assay. Results: The expression of DRG2 was highest in LNCaP-LN3 and lowest in DU145 cells. Expressions of p53 in PC3, DU145, and the two LNCaP cell lines were null-type, high-expression, and medium-expression, respectively. In PC3 (DRG2 high, p53 null) cells, docetaxel increased G2/M arrest without apoptosis; however, subsequent treatment with olaparib promoted apoptosis. In DU145 and LNCaP-FGC (DRG2 low), docetaxel increased sub-G1 but not G2/M arrest and induced apoptosis, whereas olaparib had no additional effect. In LNCaP-LN3 (DRG2 high, p53 wild-type), docetaxel increased sub-G1 and G2/M arrest, furthermore olaparib enhanced cell death. Docetaxel and olaparib combination treatment had a slight effect on DRG2 knockdown PC3, but increased apoptosis in DRG2-overexpressed DU145 cells. Conclusions DRG2 and p53 expressions play an important role in prostate cancer cell lines treated with docetaxel, and DRG2 levels can predict the response to PARP inhibitors.

Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents. The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease published the Atopic Dermatitis Treatment Guideline in 2008, which has been helpful in atopic dermatitis treatment until now. Various reports on the development and effectiveness of new drugs have suggested that there is a need to develop and revise old treatment guidelines. Part 1 aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for skin care management and topical treatment for atopic dermatitis. Part 2 focuses on systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy. The goal of this guideline is intended to assist front-line doctors treating pediatric and adolescent atopic dermatitis patients make safer, more effective, and more rational decisions regarding systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy by providing evidence-based recommendations with a clear level of evidence and benefit regarding treatment.

Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents. The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease published the Atopic Dermatitis Treatment Guideline in 2008, which has been helpful in atopic dermatitis treatment until now. Various reports on the development and effectiveness of new drugs have suggested that there is a need to develop and revise old treatment guidelines. Part 1 aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for skin care management and topical treatment for atopic dermatitis. Part 2 focuses on systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy. The goal of this guideline is intended to assist front-line doctors treating pediatric and adolescent atopic dermatitis patients make safer, more effective, and more rational decisions regarding systemic treatment, novel therapeutics, and adjuvant therapy by providing evidence-based recommendations with a clear level of evidence and benefit regarding treatment.

Purpose: Despite the widespread use of liquid skin adhesives (LSA), concerns persist regarding the increase in wound care costs. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LSA for surgical wound management. Methods: In this prospective, open-label, single-center randomized controlled trial, adults aged 19 years and older who were scheduled for elective minimally invasive colorectal surgeries were included. The participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: an n-butyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive was used in the experimental group (LSA group), while a surgical skin stapler was employed in the control group (stapler group). The primary outcome measure was the sum of the total time required for wound management. Results: A total of 58 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, with 29 patients in each group. The findings revealed comparable wound complication rates in the 2 groups (8 out of 29 in the LSA group vs. 5 out of 29 in the stapler group, P = 0.530). Notably, the LSA group had a significantly shorter wound management time (median 235 seconds vs. 1,201 seconds, P < 0.001) and similar wound management cost (median US dollar [USD] 50.6 vs. USD 54.6, P = 0.529) compared to the stapler group. Subgroup analysis showed that the LSA group had a shorter management time for uncomplicated wounds and a lower cost for complicated wounds. Conclusion LSA not only provides a safe alternative but also offers a resource-efficient option for wound management compared to staplers.

The application area of biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) is gradually expanding. Compared with conventional fusion surgery, transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using BESS (BESS-TLIF) has the advantages of less bleeding, minimal postoperative pain, and faster recovery. This technical note highlights its application in managing complex conditions such as scar tissue adhesion, altered anatomy, and implant removal, common in reoperations. The method focuses on precise dissection, endoscopic visualization, and careful tissue handling to ensure effective decompression and stabilization. Three representative cases, including reoperations for recurrent disc herniation, adjacent segment disease (ASD) following prior fusion, and ASD with nonunion of the prior fusion site requiring fusion extension, were described. All three cases exhibited clinical improvement following surgery. BESS is an effective and safe method for spinal revision surgery not only in simple decompression surgery but also in cases that required fusion surgery. As BESS is advancing, its role in complex spinal surgeries is expected to expand, potentially setting new standards in minimally invasive spine surgery.

Purpose: While colonoscopy is the standard surveillance tool for stage I colorectal cancer according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, its effectiveness in detecting recurrence is debated. This study evaluates recurrence risk factors and patterns in stage I colorectal cancer to inform comprehensive surveillance strategies. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 2,248 stage I colorectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery at Samsung Medical Center (2007-2018) was conducted. Exclusions were based on familial history, prior recurrences, preoperative treatments, and inadequate data. Surveillance included colonoscopy, laboratory tests, and computed tomography (CT) scans. Results: Stage I colorectal cancer patients showed favorable 5-year disease-free survival (98.3% colon, 94.6% rectum). Among a total of 1,467 colon cancer patients, 26 (1.76%) experienced recurrence. Of the 781 rectal cancer patients, 47 (6.02%) experienced recurrence. Elevated preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levels and perineural invasion were significant recurrence risk factors in colon cancer, while tumor budding was significant in rectal cancer. Distant metastasis was the main recurrence pattern in colon cancer (92.3%), while rectal cancer showed predominantly local recurrence (50%). Colonoscopy alone detected recurrences in a small fraction of cases (3.7% in colon, 14.9% in rectum). Conclusion Although recurrence in stage I colorectal cancer is rare, relying solely on colonoscopy for surveillance may miss distant metastases or locoregional recurrence outside the colorectum. For high-risk patients, we recommend considering regular CT scans alongside colonoscopy. This targeted approach may enable earlier recurrence detection and improve outcomes in this subset while avoiding unnecessary scans for the low-risk majority.