Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a stroke subtype with high mortality and poor functional outcomes. Prompt occlusion of a ruptured aneurysm at an early stage is crucial to prevent rebleeding, which can result in even higher mortality and more severe disabilities. The most critical initial decision in SAH management is the choice of treatment method with surgical clipping or endovascular coiling. We aimed to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline to select the optimal initial treatment in patients with SAH. We developed this guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed) to answer two population, intervention, comparison, outcome questions comparing clipping and coiling. The risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagrams and meta-analyses were generated for functional outcome and mortality. We included six randomized control trials (RCTs) and 58 observational studies. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that coiling improved functional outcomes compared to clipping (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.97). No significant mortality difference was observed in RCTs (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.91–2.09), but non-RCTs favored clipping for reduced mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69–0.86). However, it is difficult to generalize these findings to all clinical situations, as patients with SAH have a highly variable clinical course. Final treatment decision should be tailored to the individual patient’s status, including aneurysm location, morphology, and the expertise available at the treatment center. Such decisions are best made by specialists such as a board-certified physician and should be explained to the patient and their caregivers, along with the rationale for selecting the most appropriate treatment at the given hospital. Korea has many certified endovascular neurosurgeons, cerebrovascular surgeons, and certified cerebrovascular centers. Proper selection of the most suitable treatment method by certified physicians and centers would greatly benefit patient outcomes and healthcare professionals.

Accurate and early identification of stroke and large vessel occlusion (LVO) in emergency settings is essential for improving patient outcomes and ensuring the efficient allocation of medical resources. This clinical practice guideline systematically reviews domestic and international literature and conducts meta-analyses to evaluate the utility and diagnostic accuracy of stroke assessment tools used in prehospital emergency medical services (EMS). We developed a guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of diagnostic EMS assessment tools for diagnosing stroke and LVO. Overall, 70 non-randomized control studies were selected for this study. A meta-analysis was conducted with a subgroup analysis to distinguish between patients with stroke and those with LVO. EMS tools demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity for diagnosing stroke. In the prehospital setting, using validated EMS stroke assessment tools is recommended for the early identification of stroke and LVO. Upon hospital arrival, stroke specialists should conduct further evaluation and triage to confirm the diagnosis and guide appropriate management. Delays in diagnosing LVO are frequently unacceptable. While experts advocate for the use of EMS assessment tools to facilitate early identification of LVO, these tools alone lack adequate sensitivity. Therefore, further diagnostic evaluations and consultation with stroke specialists upon hospital arrival are recommended.

The mothership (MS) model, where patients are directly transferred to a thrombectomy-capable center, and the drip-and-ship (DS) model, where thrombolysis is initiated at the nearest primary stroke center before transfer for thrombectomy, are the primary transport modes for patients with stroke. We aimed to establish guidelines for selecting the appropriate transfer strategy based on emergent large vessel occlusion (LVO). We developed this guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed) to answer three Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions comparing MS and DS models. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagrams and meta-analyses were generated for functional outcomes, mortality, and successful recanalization. Twenty-six non-randomized controlled studies showed that the MS model improved good functional outcomes by approximately 14% compared with the DS model (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.30). Fifteen studies reported that mortality in the MS and DS models showed no significant differences (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84–1.11). Twenty-four studies revealed no significant difference in successful recanalization between the MS and DS models (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68–1.10). The MS model should be considered first to improve the functional outcome of patients with LVO. However, if thrombectomy cannot be performed immediately after thrombolysis, or if a thrombectomy-enabled hospital is not nearby, the DS model should be considered by stroke specialists depending on transportation time and regional factors. We suggest a mixed approach with the DS model based on specific circumstances or regions to ensure the optimum treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Appropriate transport for patients with LVO improves the prognosis of AIS.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Objectives: This preliminary, randomized, double-blind, multi-center study evaluated the efficacy of alternate-day tegoprazan (50 mg) versus daily lansoprazole (15 mg) as for maintenance therapy in patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD). Methods: Forty five participants were enrolled and treated for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of symptom-free days. The secondary endpoints were changes in Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) scores. Results: It showed no significant difference between groups in the proportion of symptom-free days between both groups (tegoprazan: 60.4%±6.3%; lansoprazole: 74.0%±6.5%). The GSRS and GERD-HRQL score improvements were also comparable between both groups. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported. Conclusions These findings suggest that alternate-day tegoprazan offers comparable efficacy and safety to daily lansoprazole therapy and may serve as a more flexible and patient-friendly maintenance option for NERD.

In fixed prosthodontic treatment of the maxillary anterior region, where high esthetics are required, it is crucial not only to achieve a successful prosthesis but also to form symmetrical and natural gingiva. To achieve esthetic gingiva, it is necessary to adjust the subgingival contour of the temporary prosthesis or to modify the base of pontic. However, during the transition from temporary to definitive prosthesis, the conventional method of removing the temporary prosthesis and taking an impression after gingival retraction often fails to accurately reproduce the gingival profile. In such cases, the gingiva is arbitrarily trimmed on the model to fabricate the definitive prosthesis, which reduces the predictability of esthetic treatment outcomes. This case report introduces methods to transfer the subgingival contour and the pontic base formed with the temporary prosthesis to the final model and definitive prosthesis through two cases.