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: Improvement of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) is known to be a good prognostic factor in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF). In the present study, we investigated the predisposing risk factors affecting the reversibility of LV diastolic filling pattern (DFP) in patients with preserved EF. Materials and Methods: A total of 600 patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF who underwent follow-up echocardiography were enrolled between 2011 and 2020. We compared their index and follow-up echocardiography findings and determined the predisposing risk factor affecting the reversibility of LVDFP. Results: Comparing the index and follow-up echocardiography findings showed that 379 (63%) patients had improved to normal or impaired relaxation LVDFP (improved group) and 221 (37%) patients had maintained or worsened LVDFP (unimproved group).The incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) was significantly higher in the unimproved group than in the improved group (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p=0.026). After adjustment for relevant clinical risk factors of diastolic dysfunction, PAF was determined to be an independent predisposing risk factor for the unimproved LVDFP (odds ratio: 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.15, p=0.033).Among the parameters of diastolic dysfunction in follow-up echocardiography, the left atrial volume index, mean E/A ratio, and E/e' were significantly improved in patients without PAF but remained in patients with PAF. Conclusion We identified that PAF was an independent predisposing risk factor of the unimproved LVDFP in patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF. Therefore, early detection and management of PAF might be required in patients with LVDD and preserved EF to prevent adverse cardiovascular events.

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: Improvement of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) is known to be a good prognostic factor in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF). In the present study, we investigated the predisposing risk factors affecting the reversibility of LV diastolic filling pattern (DFP) in patients with preserved EF. Materials and Methods: A total of 600 patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF who underwent follow-up echocardiography were enrolled between 2011 and 2020. We compared their index and follow-up echocardiography findings and determined the predisposing risk factor affecting the reversibility of LVDFP. Results: Comparing the index and follow-up echocardiography findings showed that 379 (63%) patients had improved to normal or impaired relaxation LVDFP (improved group) and 221 (37%) patients had maintained or worsened LVDFP (unimproved group).The incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) was significantly higher in the unimproved group than in the improved group (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p=0.026). After adjustment for relevant clinical risk factors of diastolic dysfunction, PAF was determined to be an independent predisposing risk factor for the unimproved LVDFP (odds ratio: 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.15, p=0.033).Among the parameters of diastolic dysfunction in follow-up echocardiography, the left atrial volume index, mean E/A ratio, and E/e' were significantly improved in patients without PAF but remained in patients with PAF. Conclusion We identified that PAF was an independent predisposing risk factor of the unimproved LVDFP in patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF. Therefore, early detection and management of PAF might be required in patients with LVDD and preserved EF to prevent adverse cardiovascular events.

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.

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: Improvement of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) is known to be a good prognostic factor in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF). In the present study, we investigated the predisposing risk factors affecting the reversibility of LV diastolic filling pattern (DFP) in patients with preserved EF. Materials and Methods: A total of 600 patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF who underwent follow-up echocardiography were enrolled between 2011 and 2020. We compared their index and follow-up echocardiography findings and determined the predisposing risk factor affecting the reversibility of LVDFP. Results: Comparing the index and follow-up echocardiography findings showed that 379 (63%) patients had improved to normal or impaired relaxation LVDFP (improved group) and 221 (37%) patients had maintained or worsened LVDFP (unimproved group).The incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) was significantly higher in the unimproved group than in the improved group (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p=0.026). After adjustment for relevant clinical risk factors of diastolic dysfunction, PAF was determined to be an independent predisposing risk factor for the unimproved LVDFP (odds ratio: 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.15, p=0.033).Among the parameters of diastolic dysfunction in follow-up echocardiography, the left atrial volume index, mean E/A ratio, and E/e' were significantly improved in patients without PAF but remained in patients with PAF. Conclusion We identified that PAF was an independent predisposing risk factor of the unimproved LVDFP in patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF. Therefore, early detection and management of PAF might be required in patients with LVDD and preserved EF to prevent adverse cardiovascular events.

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: Given the association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic risks, a new term, metabolic dysfunction- associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has been proposed. We aimed to explore the association between MASLD and all-cause, cause-specific mortalities. Methods: We included individuals with steatotic liver disease (SLD) from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Moreover, SLD was defined as a fatty liver index ≥30. Furthermore, MASLD, metabolic alcohol-associated liver disease (MetALD), and alcoholic liver disease (ALD) with metabolic dysfunction (MD) were categorized based on alcohol consumption and MD. We also analyzed all-cause, liver-, cancer-, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)- and cardiovascular (CV)-related mortalities. Results: This retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,298,993 individuals aged 40 to 79 years for a mean follow-up duration of 9.04 years. The prevalence of MASLD, MetALD, and ALD with MD was 33.11%, 3.93%, and 1.00%, respectively. Relative to the “no SLD” group, multivariable analysis identified that MASLD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 1.31), MetALD (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.44), and ALD with MD group (aHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.68 to 1.93) have a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality. Furthermore, MASLD, MetALD, ALD with MD groups showed higher liver-, cancer- and HCC-related mortality than “no SLD” group. While all-cause specific mortalities increase from MASLD to MetALD to ALD with MD, the MetALD group shows a lower risk of CV-related mortality compared to MASLD. However, ALD with MD group still have a higher risk of CV-related mortality compared to MASLD. Conclusion SLD is associated with an increased risk of all-cause, liver-, cancer-, HCC-, and CV-related mortalities.