This case report presents an 81-year-old edentulous female patient with congenital cleft lip and palate, rehabilitated with a maxillary obturator and a mandibular complete denture. A defect in the hard palate causes nasal leakage and hypernasalization of speech. Velopharyngeal insufficiency due to a defect in the soft palate causes reflux during swallowing and decreased clarity of pronunciation.The anatomical structures, such as Passavant’s ridge, were considered to prevent respiratory problems when impression taking. We achieved satisfactory results including velopharyngeal closure for pronunciation, mastication, and swallowing, as well as improved aesthetics. Therefore, we report the process and considerations of the treatment.

This case report presents an 81-year-old edentulous female patient with congenital cleft lip and palate, rehabilitated with a maxillary obturator and a mandibular complete denture. A defect in the hard palate causes nasal leakage and hypernasalization of speech. Velopharyngeal insufficiency due to a defect in the soft palate causes reflux during swallowing and decreased clarity of pronunciation.The anatomical structures, such as Passavant’s ridge, were considered to prevent respiratory problems when impression taking. We achieved satisfactory results including velopharyngeal closure for pronunciation, mastication, and swallowing, as well as improved aesthetics. Therefore, we report the process and considerations of the treatment.

This case report presents an 81-year-old edentulous female patient with congenital cleft lip and palate, rehabilitated with a maxillary obturator and a mandibular complete denture. A defect in the hard palate causes nasal leakage and hypernasalization of speech. Velopharyngeal insufficiency due to a defect in the soft palate causes reflux during swallowing and decreased clarity of pronunciation.The anatomical structures, such as Passavant’s ridge, were considered to prevent respiratory problems when impression taking. We achieved satisfactory results including velopharyngeal closure for pronunciation, mastication, and swallowing, as well as improved aesthetics. Therefore, we report the process and considerations of the treatment.

This case report presents an 81-year-old edentulous female patient with congenital cleft lip and palate, rehabilitated with a maxillary obturator and a mandibular complete denture. A defect in the hard palate causes nasal leakage and hypernasalization of speech. Velopharyngeal insufficiency due to a defect in the soft palate causes reflux during swallowing and decreased clarity of pronunciation.The anatomical structures, such as Passavant’s ridge, were considered to prevent respiratory problems when impression taking. We achieved satisfactory results including velopharyngeal closure for pronunciation, mastication, and swallowing, as well as improved aesthetics. Therefore, we report the process and considerations of the treatment.

This case report presents an 81-year-old edentulous female patient with congenital cleft lip and palate, rehabilitated with a maxillary obturator and a mandibular complete denture. A defect in the hard palate causes nasal leakage and hypernasalization of speech. Velopharyngeal insufficiency due to a defect in the soft palate causes reflux during swallowing and decreased clarity of pronunciation.The anatomical structures, such as Passavant’s ridge, were considered to prevent respiratory problems when impression taking. We achieved satisfactory results including velopharyngeal closure for pronunciation, mastication, and swallowing, as well as improved aesthetics. Therefore, we report the process and considerations of the treatment.

Background: Skin rejuvenation has become an increasingly popular noninvasive approach to address age-related changes such as sagging, wrinkles, and skin laxity. Energy-based devices (EBDs) and injectables are widely used, but their application requires careful customization based on individual patient characteristics to optimize outcomes and minimize potential adverse effects. Objective: This study aimed to explore clinical practice patterns among board-certified dermatologists in South Korea, focusing on their strategies for tailoring skin rejuvenation treatments to individual patients, including the integration of EBDs, injectables, and senotherapeutics. Methods: A structured survey comprising 10 questions was administered to 13 experienced dermatologists specializing in skin rejuvenation. The survey covered treatment strategies for patients with varying facial fat volumes, pain management approaches, and the use of EBDs, injectables and senotherapeutics. Results: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and radiofrequency (RF) were the most employed EBDs, often combined with injectables for enhanced outcomes. For patients with higher facial fat, HIFU and deoxycholic acid injections were preferred for contouring and tightening. For those with lower facial fat, biostimulatory agents such as poly-D, L-lactic acid and microneedle RF were favored to restore volume and elasticity. Pain management strategies included topical anesthetics and stepwise protocols. Although less commonly used, senotherapeutics were occasionally prescribed for specific conditions, such as melasma and extensive photoaging. Conclusion Dermatologists in South Korea employ a variety of patient-specific strategies for skin rejuvenation, combining various EBDs, injectables, and senotherapeutics. These findings highlight the importance of personalized treatment protocols and the need for further research to optimize treatment efficacy and safety.

PURPOSE: This pilot study investigated the effect of surface roughness on osseointegration by comparing two types of commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness levels: moderately rough (Sa = 1 – 2 µm) and rough surfaces (Sa > 2 µm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two implant groups were studied: TS (rough surface) and ADD (moderately rough surface) groups. Surface characteristics were analyzed using optical profilometry and SEM. In vitro studies using BRITER cells assessed cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation through CCK-8 assay and qRT-PCR for osteopontin (OPN), osteocalcin (OCN), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression. The in vivo study involved 12 implants (six per group) placed in mandibular defects of two beagle dogs. After 8 weeks, histomorphometric analysis evaluated bone to implant contact (BIC) and inter-thread bone density (ITBD). Statistical analysis used Student’s t-test and two-way ANOVA for in vitro data, and Mann-Whitney U test for in vivo data. RESULTS: Surface analysis revealed Sa values of 2.50 ± 0.27 µm for the TS group and 1.80 ± 0.06 µm for the ADD group. In vitro studies showed no significant differences in cell adhesion and proliferation between the groups (P > .05). However, gene expression patterns differed, with ADD group showing higher OPN expression (P < .001) and TS group showing higher ALP expression (P < .01). The in vivo study revealed no statistically significant differences in BIC and ITBD between the two groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION Surface roughness influenced osteoblast differentiation in vitro, but did not significantly affect osseointegration outcomes in vivo. Both moderately rough and rough surfaces appeared to support comparable levels of osseointegration. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine optimal implant surface characteristics.

In completely edentulous patients, reference points for determining the occlusal plane and vertical dimension are lacking. Therefore, accurately recording the jaw relation is essential for the fabrication of dentures or implant prostheses. Traditional methods using occlusal rims for bite registration require time for fabrication and intraoral adjustments, leading to patient discomfort with multiple visits. Recently, several methods have been developed to address these limitations by simultaneously obtaining impressions and jaw relation records. The JB Fork (PNUADD Co., Ltd., Busan, Korea) is a one-step jaw-relation recording system that can be integrated with digital protocols for fabrication of dental prostheses. It allows for simultaneous impression-making, verification of the maxillary anterior tooth arrangement, and recording of vertical and horizontal jaw relations, thereby facilitating the transfer of the occlusal plane. This case report aims to present a method for acquiring jaw-relation records using a JB fork and digital scan data.

PURPOSE: This pilot study investigated the effect of surface roughness on osseointegration by comparing two types of commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness levels: moderately rough (Sa = 1 – 2 µm) and rough surfaces (Sa > 2 µm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two implant groups were studied: TS (rough surface) and ADD (moderately rough surface) groups. Surface characteristics were analyzed using optical profilometry and SEM. In vitro studies using BRITER cells assessed cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation through CCK-8 assay and qRT-PCR for osteopontin (OPN), osteocalcin (OCN), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression. The in vivo study involved 12 implants (six per group) placed in mandibular defects of two beagle dogs. After 8 weeks, histomorphometric analysis evaluated bone to implant contact (BIC) and inter-thread bone density (ITBD). Statistical analysis used Student’s t-test and two-way ANOVA for in vitro data, and Mann-Whitney U test for in vivo data. RESULTS: Surface analysis revealed Sa values of 2.50 ± 0.27 µm for the TS group and 1.80 ± 0.06 µm for the ADD group. In vitro studies showed no significant differences in cell adhesion and proliferation between the groups (P > .05). However, gene expression patterns differed, with ADD group showing higher OPN expression (P < .001) and TS group showing higher ALP expression (P < .01). The in vivo study revealed no statistically significant differences in BIC and ITBD between the two groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION Surface roughness influenced osteoblast differentiation in vitro, but did not significantly affect osseointegration outcomes in vivo. Both moderately rough and rough surfaces appeared to support comparable levels of osseointegration. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine optimal implant surface characteristics.

PURPOSE: This pilot study investigated the effect of surface roughness on osseointegration by comparing two types of commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness levels: moderately rough (Sa = 1 – 2 µm) and rough surfaces (Sa > 2 µm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two implant groups were studied: TS (rough surface) and ADD (moderately rough surface) groups. Surface characteristics were analyzed using optical profilometry and SEM. In vitro studies using BRITER cells assessed cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation through CCK-8 assay and qRT-PCR for osteopontin (OPN), osteocalcin (OCN), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression. The in vivo study involved 12 implants (six per group) placed in mandibular defects of two beagle dogs. After 8 weeks, histomorphometric analysis evaluated bone to implant contact (BIC) and inter-thread bone density (ITBD). Statistical analysis used Student’s t-test and two-way ANOVA for in vitro data, and Mann-Whitney U test for in vivo data. RESULTS: Surface analysis revealed Sa values of 2.50 ± 0.27 µm for the TS group and 1.80 ± 0.06 µm for the ADD group. In vitro studies showed no significant differences in cell adhesion and proliferation between the groups (P > .05). However, gene expression patterns differed, with ADD group showing higher OPN expression (P < .001) and TS group showing higher ALP expression (P < .01). The in vivo study revealed no statistically significant differences in BIC and ITBD between the two groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION Surface roughness influenced osteoblast differentiation in vitro, but did not significantly affect osseointegration outcomes in vivo. Both moderately rough and rough surfaces appeared to support comparable levels of osseointegration. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine optimal implant surface characteristics.