For patients with a few remaining abutment teeth, traditional removable partial dentures and implant-supported fixed prostheses are common treatment options.However, removable dentures often struggle to provide stability, especially as bone resorption occurs over time. Implant-supported fixed prostheses offer longterm stability but are costly and affected by anatomical and medical factors. A newer option is implant-assisted removable partial dentures, which use a minimal number of implants combined with a surveyed crown. This approach enhances support, retention, and stability while reducing financial and surgical burdens. It also improves the prognosis of the remaining teeth, increases patient satisfaction, and enhances masticatory function, making it a promising alternative to conventional removable dentures.

For patients with a few remaining abutment teeth, traditional removable partial dentures and implant-supported fixed prostheses are common treatment options.However, removable dentures often struggle to provide stability, especially as bone resorption occurs over time. Implant-supported fixed prostheses offer longterm stability but are costly and affected by anatomical and medical factors. A newer option is implant-assisted removable partial dentures, which use a minimal number of implants combined with a surveyed crown. This approach enhances support, retention, and stability while reducing financial and surgical burdens. It also improves the prognosis of the remaining teeth, increases patient satisfaction, and enhances masticatory function, making it a promising alternative to conventional removable dentures.

For patients with a few remaining abutment teeth, traditional removable partial dentures and implant-supported fixed prostheses are common treatment options.However, removable dentures often struggle to provide stability, especially as bone resorption occurs over time. Implant-supported fixed prostheses offer longterm stability but are costly and affected by anatomical and medical factors. A newer option is implant-assisted removable partial dentures, which use a minimal number of implants combined with a surveyed crown. This approach enhances support, retention, and stability while reducing financial and surgical burdens. It also improves the prognosis of the remaining teeth, increases patient satisfaction, and enhances masticatory function, making it a promising alternative to conventional removable dentures.

For patients with a few remaining abutment teeth, traditional removable partial dentures and implant-supported fixed prostheses are common treatment options.However, removable dentures often struggle to provide stability, especially as bone resorption occurs over time. Implant-supported fixed prostheses offer longterm stability but are costly and affected by anatomical and medical factors. A newer option is implant-assisted removable partial dentures, which use a minimal number of implants combined with a surveyed crown. This approach enhances support, retention, and stability while reducing financial and surgical burdens. It also improves the prognosis of the remaining teeth, increases patient satisfaction, and enhances masticatory function, making it a promising alternative to conventional removable dentures.

For patients with a few remaining abutment teeth, traditional removable partial dentures and implant-supported fixed prostheses are common treatment options.However, removable dentures often struggle to provide stability, especially as bone resorption occurs over time. Implant-supported fixed prostheses offer longterm stability but are costly and affected by anatomical and medical factors. A newer option is implant-assisted removable partial dentures, which use a minimal number of implants combined with a surveyed crown. This approach enhances support, retention, and stability while reducing financial and surgical burdens. It also improves the prognosis of the remaining teeth, increases patient satisfaction, and enhances masticatory function, making it a promising alternative to conventional removable dentures.

Background/Aims: Quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) is believed to identify patients at risk of poor outcomes in those with suspected infection. We aimed to evaluate the ability of modified qSOFA (m-qSOFA) to identify high-risk patients among those with acutely deteriorated chronic liver disease (CLD), especially those with acute-onchronic liver failure (ACLF). Methods: We used data from both the Korean Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (KACLiF) and the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) cohorts. qSOFA was modified by replacing the Glasgow Coma Scale with hepatic encephalopathy, and an m-qSOFA ≥2 was considered high. Results: Patients with high m-qSOFA had a significantly lower 1-month transplant-free survival (TFS) in both cohorts and higher organ failure development in KACLiF than those with low m-qSOFA (Ps<0.05). Subgroup analysis by ACLF showed that patients with high m-qSOFA had lower TFS than those with low m-qSOFA. m-qSOFA was an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratios, HR=2.604, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.353–5.013, P=0.004 in KACLiF and HR=1.904, 95% CI 1.484– 2.442, P<0.001 in AARC). The patients with low m-qSOFA at baseline but high m-qSOFA on day 7 had a significantly lower 1-month TFS than those with high m-qSOFA at baseline but low m-qSOFA on day 7 (52.6% vs. 89.4%, P<0.001 in KACLiF and 26.9% vs. 61.5%, P<0.001 in AARC). Conclusions Baseline and dynamic changes in m-qSOFA may identify patients with a high risk of developing organ failure and short-term mortality among CLD patients with acute deterioration.

Background/Aims: Combination immunotherapy, exemplified by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, has become the standard of care for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the lack of predictive biomarkers and limited understanding of response mechanisms remain a challenge. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave150plus cohort, we applied an immune signature score (ISS) predictor to stratify HCC patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or with sorafenib alone into potential high and low response groups. By applying multiple statistical approaches including a Bayesian covariate prediction algorithm, we refined the signature to 10 key genes (ISS10) for clinical use while maintaining similar predictive power to the full model. We further validated ISS10 in an independent HCC cohort treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Results: The study identified a significant association between the ISS and treatment response. Among patients classified as high responders, those treated with the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combination exhibited improved overall and progression-free survival as well as better objective response rate compared to those treated with sorafenib. We also observed a significant correlation between ISS10 and response to nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment. Analysis of immune cell subpopulations revealed distinct characteristics associated with ISS subtypes. In particular, the ISS10 high subtype displayed a more favorable immune environment with higher proportions of antitumor macrophages and activated T-cells, potentially explaining its better response. Conclusions Our study suggests that ISS and ISS10 are promising predictive biomarkers for enhanced therapeutic outcomes in HCC patients undergoing combination immunotherapy. These markers are crucial for refining patient stratification and personalized treatment approaches to advance the effectiveness of standard-of-care regimens.