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.

Background: Despite the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, limited data exist on their perceived benefits and challenges among patients and healthcare providers. This study explored CGM-related experiences in South Korea. Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted between January and December 2021 at four university hospitals. Respondents included patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), physicians, and DM education nurses. The survey assessed the use of CGM, its benefits, and barriers. Most devices were first-generation CGMs: FreeStyle Libre 1 (Abbott Diabetes Care), Dexcom G6 (Dexcom Inc.), and Medtronic Guardian 3 (Medtronic MiniMed). Results: Among 1,010 patients (33.4% with type 1 DM [T1DM], 63.6% with type 2 DM [T2DM], and 3.1% others; mean age, 51.4±14.6 years), 92.7% found CGM helpful. Although 59.6% reported discomfort, 81.9% intended to continue using CGM, indicating that perceived benefits outweighed barriers. The key advantages were glucose monitoring without finger pricks (T1DM, 57.9%; T2DM, 56.2%) and maintenance of target glucose levels. Discomfort was related to discomfort during activities (53.8%), skin problems (45.0%), and pain (43.0%). Healthcare provider recommendations were associated with reduced discomfort (adjusted odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.21–0.60). Physicians (n=29) cited high costs as the main barrier (T1DM, 58.9%; T2DM, 64.8%); only 51.9% and 14.5% prescribed CGM for T1DM and T2DM, respectively. Insulin adjustment and glucose control were the main reasons for prescription, while cost (89.3%) and limited consultation time (67.9%) were barriers. DM educators (n=9) reported heavy workloads, with training and follow-up times averaging 31.7±7.5 minutes and 21.7±9.7 minutes, respectively; 77.8% of DM educators identified frequent patient inquiries as their greatest burden. Conclusion CGM provides significant clinical benefits but is limited by discomfort, costs, and educational burden. Sustained adoption requires device improvements, insurance support, and workforce expansion.

Objective: Primary frozen shoulder causes significant pain and progressively restricts shoulder movements. Diagnosis is made clinically based on patient history and physical examination. Management is mainly non-invasive owing to its self-limiting clinical course. However, clinical practice guidelines for frozen shoulder have not yet been developed in Korea. The developed guidelines aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of frozen shoulder. Methods: A guideline development committee reviewed the literature from four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KMbase). Using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) framework, the committee formulated two backgrounds and 16 key questions to address common clinical concerns. Recommendations were made using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Results: Diabetes, thyroid disease, and dyslipidemia significantly increase the risk of developing a frozen shoulder. Although frozen shoulder is often self-limiting, some patients may experience long-term functional disabilities. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging should be used as adjunctive tools alongside clinical diagnosis, and rather than as independent diagnostic methods. Noninvasive approaches, such as medications, physical modalities, exercises, electrical stimulation, and manual therapy, may reduce pain and improve shoulder function. Other noninvasive interventions have limited evidence, and their application should be based on clinical judgment. Intra-articular steroid injections are recommended for treatment, and physiotherapy or hydrodilation with steroid injections can also be beneficial. Conclusion These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating primary frozen shoulder.

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: Inhalation of air containing high amounts of particular matter (PM) causes various respiratory disorders including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer. The changes of expression of inflammatory factors by polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) administration in the PM10-exposed trachea inflammation model were evaluated. Methods: PM10 was administered to mouse trachea to induce acute inflammatory damage, and changes in inflammatory factors were observed after administration of PDRN and 3,7-dimethyl-1-propargylxanthine (DMPX) for 3 days daily. Expression of inflammatory cytokines, adenosine A2A receptor (A2AR), protein kinase A (PKA), 3΄,5΄-cyclic adenosine monophosphate responsive element binding protein (CREB) were detected by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay, immunofluorescence, and western blot assay. Results: PM-exposed trachea showed increased tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukin (IL)-1β expression, and expression of TNF-α and IL-1β was inhibited by PDRN treatment in PM-exposed mice. PM-exposed trachea showed increased nuclear factor (NF)-κB phosphorylation, and phosphorylation of nuclear factor-kappa B was inhibited by PDRN treatment in PM-exposed mice. PM-exposed trachea showed increased expression of A2AR, but PDRN treatment more enhanced A2AR expression in PM-exposed mice. PKA phosphorylation was not changed and CREP phosphorylation was decreased, however PDRN treatment increased phosphorylation of PKA and CREB in PM-exposed mice. DMPX treatment blocked all the effects of PDRN on PM-exposed mice, demonstrating that the action of PDRN occurs via A2AR. Conclusions PDRN treatment attenuated inflammation in the trachea of the PM10-exposed mice. This improving effect of PDRN can be ascribed to the activation of A2AR through the cAMP-PKA pathway.