Opioid use disorder (OUD) in pregnancy has increased significantly in the past 10 years. Women with OUD may often be undertreated or untreated because of limited accessibility to treatment, particularly in rural areas. Because detoxification is not recommended during pregnancy due to the potential for adverse outcomes in the fetus and a high risk of relapse for the woman, more primary care providers need to be well versed in opioid-assisted therapy. In addition, recent changes in Food and Drug Administration regulations now allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants with specialized training to provide buprenorphine treatment for pregnant women with OUD in primary care settings. The purpose of this article is to provide information and guidance for clinicians working with and treating this population.

Aims Orthodontic care and its effectiveness have increasingly become the focus of political and public attention in the recent past. Therefore, this multicenter cohort study aimed to report about the effectiveness of orthodontic treatments in Germany and to identify potential influencing factors. Methods A total of 586 patients from seven German study centers were screened for this cohort study, of which 361 patients were recruited at the end of their orthodontic treatment. Of these, 26 patients had missing study models and/or missing treatment information. Thus, 335 participants were included. The severity of malocclusion was rated using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index at baseline (T0) retrospectively and—prospectively—after the retention period (T1). Practitioner-, treatment- and patient-related information were analyzed in order to detect potential predictive factors for treatment effectiveness. Results Study participants (202 female and 133 male) were on average 14.8 (standard deviation [SD] ± 6.1) years old at start of active treatment. Average PAR score at T0 was 25.96 (SD ± 10.75) and mean posttreatment PAR score was 3.67 (SD ± 2.98) at T1. An average decrease of total PAR score by 22.30 points (SD ± 10.73) or 83.54% (SD ± 14.58; p < 0.001) was detected. Furthermore, 164 treatments (49.1%) were categorized as ‘greatly improved’ but only 3 treatments (0.9%) as ‘worse or no different’; 81.5% of all cases finished with a high-quality treatment outcome (≤5 PAR points at T1). Logistic regression analyses detected staff experience as a significant predictive factor for high-quality results (odds ratio 1.27, p = 0.001, 95% confidence interval 1.11–1.46). Conclusion The improvement rate among this selected German cohort indicated an overall very good standard of orthodontic treatment. Staff experience proved to be a predictive factor for high-quality results.

Human exposure to organic mercury (Hg) as methylmercury (MeHg) from seafood consumption is widely considered a health risk because pure methylmercury is extremely neurotoxic. In contrast, the clinical significance of Hg exposure from amalgam (AMG) dental restorations, the only other major non-occupational source of Hg exposure, has long been debated. Here we examined data from the two most recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) on 14,181 subjects to assess the contributions of seafood consumption versus AMG to blood total mercury (THg), inorganic mercury (IHg), and methyl mercury (MeHg) and to urine creatinine corrected mercury (UTHg). All subjects were also classified as to their self-reported qualitative consumption of seafood (59% fish and 44% shellfish). Subjects with restorations were grouped into three groups, (0) those without AMG (64.4%), (1) those with 1-5 dental AMG restorations (19.7%), (2) those with more than five AMG (16%). Seafood consumption increased total mercury in urine (UTHg) and total mercury (THg) and methyl mercury (MeHg) in blood, but unlike AMG, seafood did not increase blood inorganic mercury (IHg). Using stratified covariate (ANOVA) and multivariate (GLM) analyses revealed a strong correlation of blood (THg and IHg) and urine (UTHg) levels with the number of AMGs. In a subpopulation without fish consumption, having more than five AMG restorations raised blood THg (103%), IHg (221%), and urine UTHg (221%) over the group without AMG. The most striking difference was noted in classification by age: subjects under six years old with more than five AMG restorations had the highest blood IHg and urine UTHg among all age groups. Elevation of bivalent IHg on a large scale in children warrants urgent in-depth risk assessment with specific attention to genetic- and gender-associated vulnerabilities.

No abstract