Purpose: Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is a multifactorial condition influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors. Some patients perceive dental treatment as the cause of their TMD, which may impact symptom perception and treatment response.This study aims to compare the psychosocial and clinical characteristics of patients who attribute their TMD onset to prior dental treatment (DT group) with those who do not (NT group). Methods: A total of 250 patients diagnosed with TMD at Pusan National University Dental Hospital between January and October 2024 were included. Patients were classified into the DT group (n=92) if they attributed their symptoms to previous dental procedures, while the remaining NT group (n=158) consisted of patients with other primary complaints. Patients were additionally categorized into Generation X (1965-1980), Generation Y (1981-1999), and Generation Z (2000-2012). Clinical assessments were conducted following the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD), and psychosocial factors were evaluated using the Oral Behaviors Checklist (OBC), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), and Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15). Results: The DT group had a significantly higher mean age (54.16±16.87 years) compared to the NT group (39.71±19.12 years, p<0.001). Psychological distress scores (PHQ-9, GAD-7, and PHQ-15) were significantly higher in the DT group, particularly among Generation X patients (p<0.05). Muscle-related pain was more prevalent in the DT group (75%) than in the NT group. Interestingly, OBC scores were higher in the NT group (p<0.05). Conclusions Patients who attributed their TMD onset to dental treatment reported higher psychological distress and a greater prevalence of muscle-related pain, underscoring the need for a biopsychosocial approach to TMD management. Clinicians should consider the impact of patient perception on TMD symptoms and integrate psychological assessment and counseling to enhance treatment efficacy and patient adherence.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To quantitatively analyze and compare the forces and moments generated by thermoformed polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) and direct-printed TC-85 clear aligners (CAs), with various margin designs, during premolar rotation. Methods: In total, 132 CAs were fabricated and divided into four groups (n = 33 per group). Group C consisted of thermoformed PETG aligners with a 2 mm gingival margin. Group E comprised direct-printed TC-85 aligners with equi-gingival margin, whereas Group G utilized direct-printed TC-85 aligners with 2 mm gingival margins.Finally, Group T featured direct-printed TC-85 aligners with an additional 1 mm thickness at the mesial embrasure. The forces and moments were measured using a 6-axis force/moment transducer at 2°, 3°, and 4° of rotation. All measurements were conducted at 37°C to simulate intraoral conditions. Forces were measured in the buccolingual, anteroposterior, and vertical directions, while moments were measured in the mesiodistal, buccolingual, and rotational planes. Results: The PETG aligners (Group C) showed significantly increased buccal and posterior force across the rotation angles (P < 0.05), whereas the intrusive force remained consistent. In contrast, the TC-85 aligners maintained consistent forces across all rotation angles.Direct-printed aligners demonstrated significantly lower intrusive forces than PETG aligners (P < 0.001). Group T exhibited reduced unwanted forces while maintaining effective rotational moments. Furthermore, all direct-printed aligners showed more predictable force delivery patterns than thermoformed aligners. Conclusions Direct-printed TC-85 aligners demonstrated superior force consistency and reduced unwanted side effects compared with traditional PETG aligners. Although marginal design modifications did not significantly improve rotational efficiency, they effectively reduced unwanted intrusive forces.

In forensic science, age estimation is essential for identifying both living and deceased individuals. Teeth and jawbones serve as reliable indicators due to their gradual age-related changes and resistance to environmental factors. Among the various methods, attrition and pulp cavity size are commonly used to estimate adult age. This study aimed to enhance the accuracy of age estimation in Korean adults by combining measurements of tooth attrition and pulp cavity size obtained from panoramic radiographs of mandibular first molars. We evaluated 118 patients (62 male, 56 female) who visited Pusan National University Dental Hospital between 2010 and 2024. Radiographs and clinical photographs were analyzed for grade C teeth with exposed dentin using Takei’s method, and the pulp chamber height ratio (PCHR) and width ratio (PCWR) were measured using Jeon’s method. Intraobserver reliability was high (intraclass correlation coefficient>0.6), with no significant sex-based differences in PCHR and PCWR. Both ratios negatively correlated with age, with PCWR showing a stronger correlation, particularly in females (r=–0.606). This study derived an improved age estimation formula with R² values ranging from 0.540 to 0.546 when both PCHR and PCWR were combined. Despite the limitations of this study, such as its small sample size and reliance on panoramic radiographs, the findings suggest that combining tooth wear and pulp cavity size offers a more robust tool for age estimation in clinical and forensic settings.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To quantitatively analyze and compare the forces and moments generated by thermoformed polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) and direct-printed TC-85 clear aligners (CAs), with various margin designs, during premolar rotation. Methods: In total, 132 CAs were fabricated and divided into four groups (n = 33 per group). Group C consisted of thermoformed PETG aligners with a 2 mm gingival margin. Group E comprised direct-printed TC-85 aligners with equi-gingival margin, whereas Group G utilized direct-printed TC-85 aligners with 2 mm gingival margins.Finally, Group T featured direct-printed TC-85 aligners with an additional 1 mm thickness at the mesial embrasure. The forces and moments were measured using a 6-axis force/moment transducer at 2°, 3°, and 4° of rotation. All measurements were conducted at 37°C to simulate intraoral conditions. Forces were measured in the buccolingual, anteroposterior, and vertical directions, while moments were measured in the mesiodistal, buccolingual, and rotational planes. Results: The PETG aligners (Group C) showed significantly increased buccal and posterior force across the rotation angles (P < 0.05), whereas the intrusive force remained consistent. In contrast, the TC-85 aligners maintained consistent forces across all rotation angles.Direct-printed aligners demonstrated significantly lower intrusive forces than PETG aligners (P < 0.001). Group T exhibited reduced unwanted forces while maintaining effective rotational moments. Furthermore, all direct-printed aligners showed more predictable force delivery patterns than thermoformed aligners. Conclusions Direct-printed TC-85 aligners demonstrated superior force consistency and reduced unwanted side effects compared with traditional PETG aligners. Although marginal design modifications did not significantly improve rotational efficiency, they effectively reduced unwanted intrusive forces.

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.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To quantitatively analyze and compare the forces and moments generated by thermoformed polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) and direct-printed TC-85 clear aligners (CAs), with various margin designs, during premolar rotation. Methods: In total, 132 CAs were fabricated and divided into four groups (n = 33 per group). Group C consisted of thermoformed PETG aligners with a 2 mm gingival margin. Group E comprised direct-printed TC-85 aligners with equi-gingival margin, whereas Group G utilized direct-printed TC-85 aligners with 2 mm gingival margins.Finally, Group T featured direct-printed TC-85 aligners with an additional 1 mm thickness at the mesial embrasure. The forces and moments were measured using a 6-axis force/moment transducer at 2°, 3°, and 4° of rotation. All measurements were conducted at 37°C to simulate intraoral conditions. Forces were measured in the buccolingual, anteroposterior, and vertical directions, while moments were measured in the mesiodistal, buccolingual, and rotational planes. Results: The PETG aligners (Group C) showed significantly increased buccal and posterior force across the rotation angles (P < 0.05), whereas the intrusive force remained consistent. In contrast, the TC-85 aligners maintained consistent forces across all rotation angles.Direct-printed aligners demonstrated significantly lower intrusive forces than PETG aligners (P < 0.001). Group T exhibited reduced unwanted forces while maintaining effective rotational moments. Furthermore, all direct-printed aligners showed more predictable force delivery patterns than thermoformed aligners. Conclusions Direct-printed TC-85 aligners demonstrated superior force consistency and reduced unwanted side effects compared with traditional PETG aligners. Although marginal design modifications did not significantly improve rotational efficiency, they effectively reduced unwanted intrusive forces.

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.