Proving Causation With Epidemiological Evidence in Tobacco Lawsuits / 예방의학회지

Recently, a series of lawsuits were filed in Korea claiming tort liability against tobacco companies. The Supreme Court has already issued decisions in some cases, while others are still pending. The primary issue in these cases is whether the epidemiological evidence submitted by the plaintiffs clearly proves the causal relationship between smoking and disease as required by civil law. Proving causation is difficult in tobacco lawsuits because factors other than smoking are involved in the development of a disease, and also because of the lapse of time between smoking and the manifestation of the disease. The Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision, 2011Da22092, April 10, 2014) has imposed some limitations on using epidemiological evidence to prove causation in tobacco lawsuits filed by smokers and their family members, but these limitations should be reconsidered. First, the Court stated that a disease can be categorized as specific or non-specific, and for each disease type, causation can be proven by different types of evidence. However, the concept of specific diseases is not compatible with multifactor theory, which is generally accepted in the field of public health. Second, when the epidemiological association between the disease and the risk factor is proven to be significant, imposing additional burdens of proof on the plaintiff may considerably limit the plaintiff's right to recovery, but the Court required the plaintiffs to provide additional information such as health condition and lifestyle. Third, the Supreme Court is not giving greater weight to the evidential value of epidemiological study results because the Court focuses on the fact that these studies were group-level, not individual-level. However, group-level studies could still offer valuable information about individual members of the group, e.g., probability of causation.

Analysis of surface form change after performing prophylaxis procedure on implant surface using various oral hygiene instruments / 대한치주과학회지

It is improtant that performing prophylaxis procedure on an infected implant surface in order to treat periimplantitis should not change the surface roughness and composition, so that the surface can be recovered to almost same condition as initial implant surface. This thesis, therefore, studied an effect of various oral hygiene instrument on implant surface. A surface roughness measurement instrument and an injection electron microscope were used to observe a change on surface. The purpose of this study was to obtain a clinical guideline during implant care and peri-implantitis treatment. The result were as follows 1. Ra values (surface roughness value) at experimental group 1, group 2, and group 5 were increased significantly as compared with comparison group (p<0.05). 2. When compared experimental group 1 with each exprimental groups at which prohylaxis procedure was performed, mean values of Ra at experimental group 2, group 3, group 6, and group 7 were decreased significantly(p<0.05). 3. Mean value of Ra was lowest at experimental group 2, and highest at experimental group 2, and highest at experimental group 5. 4. Analysis of SEM showed that was significant surface change at experimental group 2, group 3, group 4, group 5, and group 6 as compared with comparison group(X1000). 5. Analysis fo EDX showed that a quantity of Ti on surface for experimental group 6 was very similar to that for comparison group. In conclusion, air-powder abrasive and citric acid, plastic instrument are safe methods to use for performing prophylaxis procedure on implant care or for cleaning and sterilization process on treatment of peri-implantitis, based on the result that those method did not affect implant surface roughness and Ti composition.