Objectives: To evaluate the factors that influence the survival of dental implants and marginal bone loss (MBL) in patients taking osteoporosis or osteopenia medication. Materials and Methods: This study included patients who underwent dental implant treatment after taking medication for osteoporosis or osteopenia. Electronic medical records were used to collect data of patient age, sex, age at osteoporosis or osteopenia diagnosis, types of medications, age at medication initiation, duration of medication before implant surgery, whether the medication was paused before surgery, paused duration of medication, implant survival status, and MBL before and after prosthetic treatment. Firth’s logistic regression was used to analyze the relationships between each variable and implant survival as well as between MBL before and after prosthetic treatment. Results: Of the 267 patients, 111 with 209 implants were included in the study. The mean observation period was 57.9 months. The survival rate was 92.8% at the patient level and 96.2% at the implant level. No significant associations were found between implant survival and any of the variablesexamined. MBL before prosthetic treatment was significantly associated with use of receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL) inhibitors(P=0.032) and bone formation stimulators (P=0.022). Comparing the concurrent and single use of bisphosphonates and RANKL inhibitors, only the use of RANKL inhibitors alone was significantly associated with MBL before prosthetic treatment (P=0.039). MBL after prosthetic treatment was significantly associated with injection method among the routes of drug administration (P=0.011). Conclusion The implant survival rate in patients undergoing medical treatment for osteoporosis or osteopenia was comparable to the general implant survival rate. MBL before prosthetic treatment was associated with type of anti-osteoporotic medication, whereas MBL after prosthetic treatment was correlated with drug administration route. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required.

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are emerging as a transformative innovation in healthcare offering evidence-based digital interventions for the treatment, management, and prevention of various diseases and disorders. In Korea, DTx have gained significant attention as potential solutions to the increasing burden of chronic diseases and mental health conditions. However, the Korean DTx market faces several challenges that hinder its widespread adoption and integration into the national healthcare system. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the DTx market in Korea, identifies the key challenges impeding its growth, and proposes strategies for overcoming these obstacles. This study utilized a literature review and market analysis approach to examine the latest research, industry reports, and regulatory documents related to DTx. The analysis focused on three primary areas: (1) the current regulatory landscape, (2) technological advancements and challenges, and (3) economic and commercial factors influencing DTx adoption in Korea. A comparative analysis of global regulatory practices was also conducted to identify best practices. The findings revealed that while Korea has made significant strides in supporting DTx development, the market remains in its early stages. The key challenges include underdeveloped regulatory frameworks, issues with data quality and security, and a lack of established reimbursement pathways. We recommend developing tailored regulatory frameworks for DTx, enhancing policy support for small and medium-sized enterprises involved in DTx development, and increasing investments in technological infrastructure. By addressing these challenges, Korea could position itself as a leader in the global DTx market, delivering innovative and effective treatments to enhance patient care and outcomes.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are emerging as a transformative innovation in healthcare offering evidence-based digital interventions for the treatment, management, and prevention of various diseases and disorders. In Korea, DTx have gained significant attention as potential solutions to the increasing burden of chronic diseases and mental health conditions. However, the Korean DTx market faces several challenges that hinder its widespread adoption and integration into the national healthcare system. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the DTx market in Korea, identifies the key challenges impeding its growth, and proposes strategies for overcoming these obstacles. This study utilized a literature review and market analysis approach to examine the latest research, industry reports, and regulatory documents related to DTx. The analysis focused on three primary areas: (1) the current regulatory landscape, (2) technological advancements and challenges, and (3) economic and commercial factors influencing DTx adoption in Korea. A comparative analysis of global regulatory practices was also conducted to identify best practices. The findings revealed that while Korea has made significant strides in supporting DTx development, the market remains in its early stages. The key challenges include underdeveloped regulatory frameworks, issues with data quality and security, and a lack of established reimbursement pathways. We recommend developing tailored regulatory frameworks for DTx, enhancing policy support for small and medium-sized enterprises involved in DTx development, and increasing investments in technological infrastructure. By addressing these challenges, Korea could position itself as a leader in the global DTx market, delivering innovative and effective treatments to enhance patient care and outcomes.

Objectives: To evaluate the factors that influence the survival of dental implants and marginal bone loss (MBL) in patients taking osteoporosis or osteopenia medication. Materials and Methods: This study included patients who underwent dental implant treatment after taking medication for osteoporosis or osteopenia. Electronic medical records were used to collect data of patient age, sex, age at osteoporosis or osteopenia diagnosis, types of medications, age at medication initiation, duration of medication before implant surgery, whether the medication was paused before surgery, paused duration of medication, implant survival status, and MBL before and after prosthetic treatment. Firth’s logistic regression was used to analyze the relationships between each variable and implant survival as well as between MBL before and after prosthetic treatment. Results: Of the 267 patients, 111 with 209 implants were included in the study. The mean observation period was 57.9 months. The survival rate was 92.8% at the patient level and 96.2% at the implant level. No significant associations were found between implant survival and any of the variablesexamined. MBL before prosthetic treatment was significantly associated with use of receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL) inhibitors(P=0.032) and bone formation stimulators (P=0.022). Comparing the concurrent and single use of bisphosphonates and RANKL inhibitors, only the use of RANKL inhibitors alone was significantly associated with MBL before prosthetic treatment (P=0.039). MBL after prosthetic treatment was significantly associated with injection method among the routes of drug administration (P=0.011). Conclusion The implant survival rate in patients undergoing medical treatment for osteoporosis or osteopenia was comparable to the general implant survival rate. MBL before prosthetic treatment was associated with type of anti-osteoporotic medication, whereas MBL after prosthetic treatment was correlated with drug administration route. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required.