For patients with a few remaining abutment teeth, traditional removable partial dentures and implant-supported fixed prostheses are common treatment options.However, removable dentures often struggle to provide stability, especially as bone resorption occurs over time. Implant-supported fixed prostheses offer longterm stability but are costly and affected by anatomical and medical factors. A newer option is implant-assisted removable partial dentures, which use a minimal number of implants combined with a surveyed crown. This approach enhances support, retention, and stability while reducing financial and surgical burdens. It also improves the prognosis of the remaining teeth, increases patient satisfaction, and enhances masticatory function, making it a promising alternative to conventional removable dentures.

In cases of partially edentulous patients with insufficient remaining teeth, rotational movement of the denture occurs and prognosis of the remaining teeth is uncertain when restoring with a removable partial denture. Recently, implant-assisted removable partial dentures, where a small number of implants are placed and surveyed crowns are fabricated on the implants to be used as abutments, have been suggested. In this case, the patient had only one remaining tooth in the mandible and implants were placed in both posterior regions to be used as surveyed crowns to restore the patient with an implant-assisted removable partial denture. This approach improved the support, retention, and stability of the denture, resulting in functionally and aesthetically satisfactory outcomes.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

For patients with a few remaining abutment teeth, traditional removable partial dentures and implant-supported fixed prostheses are common treatment options.However, removable dentures often struggle to provide stability, especially as bone resorption occurs over time. Implant-supported fixed prostheses offer longterm stability but are costly and affected by anatomical and medical factors. A newer option is implant-assisted removable partial dentures, which use a minimal number of implants combined with a surveyed crown. This approach enhances support, retention, and stability while reducing financial and surgical burdens. It also improves the prognosis of the remaining teeth, increases patient satisfaction, and enhances masticatory function, making it a promising alternative to conventional removable dentures.

In cases of partially edentulous patients with insufficient remaining teeth, rotational movement of the denture occurs and prognosis of the remaining teeth is uncertain when restoring with a removable partial denture. Recently, implant-assisted removable partial dentures, where a small number of implants are placed and surveyed crowns are fabricated on the implants to be used as abutments, have been suggested. In this case, the patient had only one remaining tooth in the mandible and implants were placed in both posterior regions to be used as surveyed crowns to restore the patient with an implant-assisted removable partial denture. This approach improved the support, retention, and stability of the denture, resulting in functionally and aesthetically satisfactory outcomes.

For patients with a few remaining abutment teeth, traditional removable partial dentures and implant-supported fixed prostheses are common treatment options.However, removable dentures often struggle to provide stability, especially as bone resorption occurs over time. Implant-supported fixed prostheses offer longterm stability but are costly and affected by anatomical and medical factors. A newer option is implant-assisted removable partial dentures, which use a minimal number of implants combined with a surveyed crown. This approach enhances support, retention, and stability while reducing financial and surgical burdens. It also improves the prognosis of the remaining teeth, increases patient satisfaction, and enhances masticatory function, making it a promising alternative to conventional removable dentures.

In cases of partially edentulous patients with insufficient remaining teeth, rotational movement of the denture occurs and prognosis of the remaining teeth is uncertain when restoring with a removable partial denture. Recently, implant-assisted removable partial dentures, where a small number of implants are placed and surveyed crowns are fabricated on the implants to be used as abutments, have been suggested. In this case, the patient had only one remaining tooth in the mandible and implants were placed in both posterior regions to be used as surveyed crowns to restore the patient with an implant-assisted removable partial denture. This approach improved the support, retention, and stability of the denture, resulting in functionally and aesthetically satisfactory outcomes.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.