• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.226-237
• /
• 2005

Purpose : Extensive defect of oral and maxillofacial area is usually reconstructed with composite flap including skin paddle. However, if the defects are lined with only skin components, the mucosa's role in mastication and texture are not restored. Furthermore, stiffness and hair-growing prevent denture rehabilitation and good oral hygiene. This study was performed to overcome the disadvantages of composite soft tissue flaps including the skin and to make a model for myo-mucosal flaps. Materials and methods : Buccal mucosa sized $0.5\times1.0\;cm^2$ from New Zealand rabbit (around 1.5kg) was harvested and cultivated by the modification of Rheinwald and Green's keratinocyte culture method. Cultured mucosa was grafted on the fascia of latismus dorsi as form of mucosal sheet. After 7, 10, 14 days, the myomucosal flap was excised and evaluated under light microscope with H & E and immunohistochemical staining. As control group, harvested buccal mucosa from rabbit was transplanted to gracilis muscle(n=6). Results : From 7 days after prelamination, the basal layer of the grafted mucosa resembled that of normal mucosa. As control group, transplanted mucosa had original shape but there's slight inflammatory reaction. Prelaminated mucosa has 19.8$\pm$4.59 cell layers and some samples have more than 20 layers. The expression rate of PCNA was relatively strong (42.9%$\pm$14.1) at the basal layer of grafted mucosa and the laminin was found at the basal layer. On the contrary, prelaminated mucosa at 10 days showed moderate expression rate of PCNA(32.4%$\pm$4.62). We found the mucosal layer was somehow disappeared and there is strong inflammatory reaction. After 14 days prelamination, the grafted oral keratinocytes were almost disappeared and expression of PCNA was not observed. Conclusion : We can make 75 fold large mucosal($3850mm^2$) sheet from small samples of mucosa $(50mm^2)$. Epithelial sheet that grafted on the fascia of muscle underwent differentiation and proliferation. But after 10, 14 days, there was strong inflammatory reaction and the grafted mucosa was destroyed from surface layer. In rabbit model, transfer of fascio-mucosal flap should be done from 7 to 10 days after prelamination.

• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.91-117
• /
• 2007

This study was to compare the contents and practical problems addressed, the process of teaching-learning method, and evaluation method of Korean Home Economics curriculum and of the Oregon and Ohio's Practical Problem Focused Family & Consumer Sciences Curricula. The results are as follows. First, contents of Korean curriculum are organized by major sub-concepts of Home Economics academic discipline whereas curricular of both Oregon and Ohio states are organized by practical problems. Oregon uses the practical problems which integrate multi-subjects and Ohio uses ones which are good for the contents of the module by integrating concerns or interests which are lower or detailed level (related interests). Since it differentiates interest and module and used them based on the basic concept of Family and Consumer Science, Ohio's approach could be easier for Korean teachers and students to adopt. Second, the teaching-learning process in Korean home economics classroom is mostly teacher-centered which hinders students to develop higher order thinking skills. It is recommended to use student-centered learning activities. State of Oregon and Ohio's teaching-learning process brings up the ability of problem-solving by letting students clearly analyze practical problems proposed, solve problems by themselves through group discussions and various activities, and apply what they learn to other problems. Third, Korean evaluation system is heavily rely on summative evaluation such as written tests. It is highly recommended to facilitate various performance assessment tools. Since state of Oregon and Ohio both use practical problems, they evaluate students mainly based on their activity rather than written tests. The tools for evaluation include project documents, reports of learning activity, self-evaluation, evaluation of discussion activity, peer evaluation in a group for each students for their performance, assessment about module, and written tests as well.