In fully edentulous patients with severe mandibular alveolar bone resorption, the retention and stability of a mandibular complete denture may be limited. There are two primary impression techniques for complete denture fabrication: the open-mouth impres-sion technique and the closed-mouth impression technique. These two methods differ in how they achieve retention and stability, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The study aims to compare the difference in supporting area, retention, and patient satisfaction between mandibular complete dentures fabricated using two impression techniques: the open-mouth impres-sion technique and the closed-mouth impression technique.

In fully edentulous patients with severe mandibular alveolar bone resorption, the retention and stability of a mandibular complete denture may be limited. There are two primary impression techniques for complete denture fabrication: the open-mouth impres-sion technique and the closed-mouth impression technique. These two methods differ in how they achieve retention and stability, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The study aims to compare the difference in supporting area, retention, and patient satisfaction between mandibular complete dentures fabricated using two impression techniques: the open-mouth impres-sion technique and the closed-mouth impression technique.

In fully edentulous patients with severe mandibular alveolar bone resorption, the retention and stability of a mandibular complete denture may be limited. There are two primary impression techniques for complete denture fabrication: the open-mouth impres-sion technique and the closed-mouth impression technique. These two methods differ in how they achieve retention and stability, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The study aims to compare the difference in supporting area, retention, and patient satisfaction between mandibular complete dentures fabricated using two impression techniques: the open-mouth impres-sion technique and the closed-mouth impression technique.

Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.

Cardio-oncology is a critical field due to the escalating significance of cardiovascular toxicity as a side effect of anti‑ cancer treatments. Cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) is a prevalent condition associated with car‑ diovascular toxicity, necessitating effective strategies for prediction, monitoring, management, and tracking. This comprehensive review examines the definition and risk stratification of CTRCD, explores monitoring approaches during anticancer therapy, and highlights specific cardiovascular toxicities linked to various cancer treatments. These include anthracyclines, HER2-targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes therapies. Incorporating the Korean data, this review offers insights into the regional nuances in managing CTRCD. Using systematic follow-up incorporating cardiovascular imaging and biomarkers, a better understanding and management of CTRCD can be achieved, optimizing the cardiovascular health of both cancer patients and survivors.

We aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for treating axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) in Korea. The development committee was constructed, key clinical questions were determined, and the evidence was searched through online databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, KoreaMed, and KMbase. Systematic literature reviews were conducted, quality of evidence was determined, and draft recommendations were formulated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. Recommendations that reached 80% consensus among a voting panel were finalized. Three principles and 21 recommendations were determined. Recommendations 1 and 2 pertain to treatment strategies, regular disease status assessment, and rheumatologist-steered multidisciplinary management. Recommendations 3 and 4 strongly recommend patient education, exercise, and smoking cessation. Recommendations 5~12 address pharmacological treatment of active disease using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoids, sulfasalazine, biologics, and Janus kinase inhibitors.Recommendations 13~16 address treatment in stable disease. We suggest against spa and acupuncture as therapies (Recommendation 17). Recommendations 18 and 19 pertain to total hip arthroplasty and spinal surgery. Monitoring of comorbidities and drug toxicities are recommended (Recommendations 20 and 21). Recommendations for axSpA treatment in a Korean context were developed based on comprehensive clinical questions and evidence. These are intended to guide best practice in the treatment of axSpA.

Background: Numerous studies have investigated risk factors for unfavorable outcomes in prosthetic breast reconstruction, such as obesity, perioperative radiotherapy, and acellular dermal matrix use. However, no reports have explored whether the use of the dominant hand influences complications in breast reconstruction. To address this gap in the literature, analyzed complication rates between the dominant and non-dominant sides after reconstruction. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 160 patients (170 breasts) who underwent breast reconstruction from February 2017 to March 2022. We analyzed the complications between beasts on the dominant and non-dominant sides according to the reconstruction method. Results: During prosthetic breast reconstruction, the drainage volume and duration on the dominant side exceeded those on the non-dominant side after reconstruction (duration: 9.79 days on the dominant side vs. 9.12 days on the non-dominant side, P=0.196; volume: 771.1 mL on the dominant side vs. 654.3 mL on the non-dominant side, P=0.027). The incidence of complications such as wound dehiscence, mastectomy flap necrosis, and infection was significantly higher in the dominant hand group (infection: 6 vs. 0, P=0.014; dehiscence: 15 vs. 4, P=0.009; flap necrosis: 13 vs. 4, P=0.024). Conclusions Complications including seroma, infection, and mastectomy skin flap necrosis following prosthetic reconstruction were common in breasts on the dominant-hand side. Therefore, meticulous management and restriction of shoulder movement can aid in preventing seroma-related complications in prosthetic breast reconstruction, especially on the side of the dominant hand.

We aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for treating axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) in Korea. The development committee was constructed, key clinical questions were determined, and the evidence was searched through online databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, KoreaMed, and Kmbase. Systematic literature reviews were conducted, quality of evidence was determined, and draft recommendations were formulated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. Recommendations that reached 80% consensus among a voting panel were finalized. Three principles and 21 recommendations were determined. Recommendations 1 and 2 pertain to treatment strategies, regular disease status assessment, and rheumatologist-steered multidisciplinary management. Recommendations 3 and 4 strongly recommend patient education, exercise, and smoking cessation. Recommendations 5–12 address pharmacological treatment of active disease using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoids, sulfasalazine, biologics, and Janus kinase inhibitors. Recommendations 13–16 address treatment in stable disease. We suggest against spa and acupuncture as therapies (Recommendation 17). Recommendations 18 and 19 pertain to total hip arthroplasty and spinal surgery. Monitoring of comorbidities and drug toxicities are recommended (Recommendations 20 and 21). Recommendations for axSpA treatment in a Korean context were developed based on comprehensive clinical questions and evidence. These are intended to guide best practice in the treatment of axSpA.