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.

Objective: Extraction of the mandibular second molar (L7) and substitution by the mandibular third molar (L8) is an effective treatment option. This study aimed to evaluate spontaneously erupted L8 occlusion after L7 extraction, and identify the influencing factors. Methods: This study assessed 46 L8 from 28 patients using dental study models, panoramic radiographs, and lateral cephalograms obtained during L7 extraction (T1) and completion of L8 eruption (T2). At T2, samples were categorized as acceptable (A-group) or unacceptable (U-group) based on the American Board of Orthodontics index.L8 angulation and position, retromolar space, distance between the Xi point and mandibular first molar (L6), and Nolla stage were compared between the groups to identify the predictive factors for successful eruption. Results: At T2, 58.7% of L8 exhibited acceptable occlusion. Age at T1 was significantly higher in the U-group than that in the A-group. Angles ∠6-MnP and ∠8-MnP differed significantly between the groups at T2. Xi-L6 distance was considerably longer in the A-group than that in the U-group at T1 and T2. Younger age at extraction and Xi-L6 distance at T1 affected the acceptable occlusion. Conclusions Younger age at L7 extraction and adequate eruption space (Xi-L6 distance) appear to be the key factors for achieving acceptable L8 occlusion.

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.

Objective: Extraction of the mandibular second molar (L7) and substitution by the mandibular third molar (L8) is an effective treatment option. This study aimed to evaluate spontaneously erupted L8 occlusion after L7 extraction, and identify the influencing factors. Methods: This study assessed 46 L8 from 28 patients using dental study models, panoramic radiographs, and lateral cephalograms obtained during L7 extraction (T1) and completion of L8 eruption (T2). At T2, samples were categorized as acceptable (A-group) or unacceptable (U-group) based on the American Board of Orthodontics index.L8 angulation and position, retromolar space, distance between the Xi point and mandibular first molar (L6), and Nolla stage were compared between the groups to identify the predictive factors for successful eruption. Results: At T2, 58.7% of L8 exhibited acceptable occlusion. Age at T1 was significantly higher in the U-group than that in the A-group. Angles ∠6-MnP and ∠8-MnP differed significantly between the groups at T2. Xi-L6 distance was considerably longer in the A-group than that in the U-group at T1 and T2. Younger age at extraction and Xi-L6 distance at T1 affected the acceptable occlusion. Conclusions Younger age at L7 extraction and adequate eruption space (Xi-L6 distance) appear to be the key factors for achieving acceptable L8 occlusion.

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.

Objective: Extraction of the mandibular second molar (L7) and substitution by the mandibular third molar (L8) is an effective treatment option. This study aimed to evaluate spontaneously erupted L8 occlusion after L7 extraction, and identify the influencing factors. Methods: This study assessed 46 L8 from 28 patients using dental study models, panoramic radiographs, and lateral cephalograms obtained during L7 extraction (T1) and completion of L8 eruption (T2). At T2, samples were categorized as acceptable (A-group) or unacceptable (U-group) based on the American Board of Orthodontics index.L8 angulation and position, retromolar space, distance between the Xi point and mandibular first molar (L6), and Nolla stage were compared between the groups to identify the predictive factors for successful eruption. Results: At T2, 58.7% of L8 exhibited acceptable occlusion. Age at T1 was significantly higher in the U-group than that in the A-group. Angles ∠6-MnP and ∠8-MnP differed significantly between the groups at T2. Xi-L6 distance was considerably longer in the A-group than that in the U-group at T1 and T2. Younger age at extraction and Xi-L6 distance at T1 affected the acceptable occlusion. Conclusions Younger age at L7 extraction and adequate eruption space (Xi-L6 distance) appear to be the key factors for achieving acceptable L8 occlusion.

The Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology has updated its clinical practice guidelines for endometrial cancer to incorporate advancements in recent high-quality randomized controlled trials. These guidelines address evolving treatment paradigms, and are tailored to the Korean medical context. Key updates include a strong recommendation for doxorubicin/trabectedin combination therapy in metastatic or recurrent unresectable leiomyosarcoma based on the significant survival benefits demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial. For advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with chemotherapy have received strong recommendations, owing to their proven efficacy and increased accessibility in Korea. Conditional recommendations were made for combination therapies involving durvalumab and olaparib, reflecting their potential benefits, but acknowledging regulatory and accessibility constraints. These guidelines aim to provide evidence-based, practical strategies to optimize care for patients with endometrial cancer while addressing unmet clinical needs and adapting global advancements to Korea’s healthcare environment.

The Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology has updated its clinical practice guidelines for endometrial cancer to incorporate advancements in recent high-quality randomized controlled trials. These guidelines address evolving treatment paradigms, and are tailored to the Korean medical context. Key updates include a strong recommendation for doxorubicin/trabectedin combination therapy in metastatic or recurrent unresectable leiomyosarcoma based on the significant survival benefits demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial. For advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with chemotherapy have received strong recommendations, owing to their proven efficacy and increased accessibility in Korea. Conditional recommendations were made for combination therapies involving durvalumab and olaparib, reflecting their potential benefits, but acknowledging regulatory and accessibility constraints. These guidelines aim to provide evidence-based, practical strategies to optimize care for patients with endometrial cancer while addressing unmet clinical needs and adapting global advancements to Korea’s healthcare environment.

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.

Objective: Extraction of the mandibular second molar (L7) and substitution by the mandibular third molar (L8) is an effective treatment option. This study aimed to evaluate spontaneously erupted L8 occlusion after L7 extraction, and identify the influencing factors. Methods: This study assessed 46 L8 from 28 patients using dental study models, panoramic radiographs, and lateral cephalograms obtained during L7 extraction (T1) and completion of L8 eruption (T2). At T2, samples were categorized as acceptable (A-group) or unacceptable (U-group) based on the American Board of Orthodontics index.L8 angulation and position, retromolar space, distance between the Xi point and mandibular first molar (L6), and Nolla stage were compared between the groups to identify the predictive factors for successful eruption. Results: At T2, 58.7% of L8 exhibited acceptable occlusion. Age at T1 was significantly higher in the U-group than that in the A-group. Angles ∠6-MnP and ∠8-MnP differed significantly between the groups at T2. Xi-L6 distance was considerably longer in the A-group than that in the U-group at T1 and T2. Younger age at extraction and Xi-L6 distance at T1 affected the acceptable occlusion. Conclusions Younger age at L7 extraction and adequate eruption space (Xi-L6 distance) appear to be the key factors for achieving acceptable L8 occlusion.