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.

PELVIS syndrome describes the constellation of perineal hemangioma, external genitalia malformations, lipomyelomeningocele, vesicorenal abnormalities, imperforate anus, and skin tag. A 2-month-old girl presented with infantile hemangioma on her perineum and genitalia with imperforate anus, rectovaginal fistula and perineal skin tag at birth. Under the impression of PELVIS syndrome, consequential spinal sonography was conducted and revealed an intrasacral meningocele without clinical neurologic deficit. The anorectal malformation was surgically corrected, she was taking oral propranolol for the cutaneous lesion, and she showed improvement and no complications.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), a rare cutaneous neuroendocrine carcinoma, is most common in sun-exposed areas of aged individuals. Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) is one causative agent of MCC. Cases of MCC concurrent with other skin tumors, especially squamous cell carcinoma, are rarely reported. Immunohistochemical staining is performed using antibodies to the MCPyV large-T antigen (CM2B4) only in select cases. To date, no cases of MCPyV have been reported in Korea. Here we report a case of MCC concurrent with squamous cell carcinoma in an aged man and discuss the pathogenesis of the case through CM2B4 staining.

Background: To evaluate the effects of teneligliptin on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived time in range, and glycemic variability in elderly type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Methods: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study was conducted in eight centers in Korea (clinical trial registration number: NCT03508323). Sixty-five participants aged ≥65 years, who were treatment-naïve or had been treated with stable doses of metformin, were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive 20 mg of teneligliptin (n=35) or placebo (n=30) for 12 weeks. The main endpoints were the changes in HbA1c levels from baseline to week 12, CGM metrics-derived time in range, and glycemic variability. Results: After 12 weeks, a significant reduction (by 0.84%) in HbA1c levels was observed in the teneligliptin group compared to that in the placebo group (by 0.08%), with a between-group least squares mean difference of –0.76% (95% confidence interval [CI], –1.08 to –0.44). The coefficient of variation, standard deviation, and mean amplitude of glycemic excursion significantly decreased in participants treated with teneligliptin as compared to those in the placebo group. Teneligliptin treatment significantly decreased the time spent above 180 or 250 mg/dL, respectively, without increasing the time spent below 70 mg/dL. The mean percentage of time for which glucose levels remained in the 70 to 180 mg/dL time in range (TIR70–180) at week 12 was 82.0%±16.0% in the teneligliptin group, and placebo-adjusted change in TIR70–180 from baseline was 13.3% (95% CI, 6.0 to 20.6). Conclusion Teneligliptin effectively reduced HbA1c levels, time spent above the target range, and glycemic variability, without increasing hypoglycemia in our study population.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to explain the patient assessment experiences of the medical staff responsible for customer satisfaction and quality improvement at their respective medical institutions. Methods: This was a qualitative study using a focus group with quality improvement or custom service department managers. Participants were selected using purposive sampling. Data collection was conducted with seventeen participants divided into three focus group interviews from July 3 to 5, 2017. Each interview took an average of 1 hour and 40 minutes. Transcribed data were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Base on the analysis, four categories and eight themes were derived. The categories were: 1) what is the quality of hospital service? 2) between directionality and timeliness, 3) variations in recognition and application, and 4) changing in hospital culture Conclusion The assessment of patient's experience has spread a patient-centered culture and elicited significant changes in the behavior of medical and hospital staff. However, the survey instruments and procedures for assessing patient experiences need to be continuously improved, and additional research is required to secure evidence related to patient experiences.