PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in South Korea, imposing substantial physical, emotional, and financial burdens on patients and society. Despite the high burden of symptom and complex care needs of HF patients, palliative care and hospice services remain underutilized in South Korea due to cultural, institutional, and knowledge-related barriers. This position statement from the Korean Society of Heart Failure emphasizes the need for integrating palliative and hospice care into HF management to improve quality of life and support holistic care for patients and their families. By clarifying the role of palliative care in HF and proposing practical referral criteria, this position statement aims to bridge the gap between HF and palliative care services in South Korea, ultimately improving patient-centered outcomes and aligning treatment with the goals and values of HF patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of the not evaluated (NE) group by comparing it with the lost to follow-up (LTFU) group among patients with multidrug/rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective longitudinal follow-up study using an integrated database constructed by data linkage of the three national databases. This database included 7226 cases of MDR/RR-TB notified between 2011 and 2017 in South Korea. Results: Among the 7226 MDR/RR-TB cases, 730 (10.1%) were classified as LTFU group, and 353 (4.9%) as NE group. When comparing NE group with LTFU group, there were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality rate (18.1% vs. 13.8%, p=0.065), median time to death [404 days (interquartile range, IQR 46–850) vs. 443 days (IQR 185–1157), p=0.140], and retreatment rate (26.9% vs.22.2%, p=0.090). After adjusting for potential confounders, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; p=0.531) in NE group was not significantly different than that in LTFU group. Among retreated cases, NE group had a higher treatment success rate (57.9% vs 43.8%, p=0.029) and a lower LTFU rate (11.6% vs 38.3%, p<0.001) compared to LTFU group. Conclusion NE group had an unfavorable outcome comparable to LTFU group, suggesting undetected cases of LTFU or deaths during the referral process. Establishing an efficient patient referral system would contribute to reducing the incidence of NE cases.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.