Ethno-demographic disparities in humoral responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on global health, but rapid vaccine administration resulted in a significant decline in morbidity and mortality rates worldwide. In this study, we sought to explore the temporal changes in the humoral immune response against SARS-CoV-2 healthcare workers (HCWs) in Augusta, GA, USA, and investigate any potential associations with ethno-demographic features. Specifically, we aimed to compare the naturally infected individuals with naïve individuals to understand the immune response dynamics after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. A total of 290 HCWs were included and assessed prospectively in this study. COVID status was determined using a saliva-based COVID assay. Neutralizing antibody (NAb) levels were quantified using a chemiluminescent immunoassay system, and IgG levels were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method. We examined the changes in antibody levels among participants using different statistical tests including logistic regression and multiple correspondence analysis. Our findings revealed a significant decline in NAb and IgG levels at 8-12 months postvaccination. Furthermore, a multivariable analysis indicated that this decline was more pronounced in White HCWs (odds ratio [OR] = 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-4.08, p = 0.02) and IgG (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.04-4.11, p = 0.03) among the whole cohort. Booster doses significantly increased IgG and NAb levels, while a decline in antibody levels was observed in participants without booster doses at 12 months postvaccination. Our results highlight the importance of understanding the dynamics of immune response and the potential influence of demographic factors on waning immunity to SARS-CoV-2. In addition, our findings emphasize the value of booster doses to ensure durable immunity.

Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load with pre-procedural mouth rinses: a randomised, controlled, clinical trial.

Introduction The purpose of this study was to test the short-term efficacy of four commercial mouthwashes versus water in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity over clinically relevant time points.Methods In total, 32 subjects that were proven SARS-CoV-2-positive via polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnostic test were recruited and randomised into five parallel arms. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared in saliva samples between the groups, as well as within the groups at baseline (pre-rinse), zero hours, one hour and two hours post-rinse, using SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR analysis.Results We observed a significant increase in Ct values in saliva samples collected immediately after rinsing with all the four mouthwashes - 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, 1.5% hydrogen peroxide, 1% povidone iodine, or Listerine - compared to water. A sustained increase in Ct values for up to two hours was only observed in the Listerine and chlorohexidine gluconate groups. We were not able to sufficiently power this clinical trial, so the results remain notional but encouraging and supportive of findings in other emerging mouthwash studies on COVID-19, warranting additional investigations.Conclusions Our evidence suggests that in a clinical setting, prophylactic rinses with Listerine or chlorhexidine gluconate can potentially reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity for up to two hours. While limited in statistical power due to the difficulty in obtaining this data, we advocate for pre-procedural mouthwashing, like handwashing, as an economical and safe additional precaution to help mitigate the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from a potentially infected patient to providers.

Does a Difference Exists in Comprehensive Basic Science Examination Scores of 4-Year versus 6-Year Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery Residents?

PURPOSE: The Comprehensive Basic Science Examination (CBSE) scores have significant effects on the applications of oral-maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residency candidates. However, a comparison of the scores of residents that match to 4-year versus 6-year programs is lacking. The present study compared the CBSE scores of OMS residency candidates who had matched to 4-year and 6-year tracks in the 2018-2019 application cycle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the present cross-sectional analysis, an anonymous questionnaire was sent electronically to program directors of all OMS residency programs in the United States using the online survey engine Survey Monkey. Data were collected on the CBSE scores of their postgraduate year 1 categorical residents and whether the resident was on a 4-year or 6-year track. The CBSE scores were summarized overall and by the type of residency program (4 vs 6 year) using the mean, standard deviation, median, mode, minimum, and maximum. In addition, the 2-sample t test was used to compare the mean CBSE score between the 4-year programs (4YPs) and 6-year programs (6YPs). RESULTS: A total of 37 scores were received from the 4YPs and 31 from the 6YPs. The overall mean CBSE score was 68.9. Using the 2-sample t test, the mean CBSE score differed significantly between the 4YPs and 6YPs (t = -6.59; df = 66; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Candidates matching into 6-year positions showed significantly higher mean scores on the CBSE examination compared with those matching into 4-year positions.

Prenatal Counseling, Ultrasound Diagnosis, and the Role of Maternal-Fetal Medicine of the Cleft Lip and Palate Patient.

A multidisciplinary team is the standard of care and the cornerstone of management of cleft patients. With readily improving advanced diagnostic modalities, early prenatal diagnosis of cleft lip and palate increasingly becomes a topic of importance for both the team caring for and families of cleft patients. Maternal-fetal medicine is a fellowship subspecialty of obstetrics that can offer high-quality care and coordination to the cleft team. Both 3-D and 4-D sonography lead to early prenatal diagnosis of cleft patients; however, differences in training result in variations in its diagnostic accuracy.

Management of cleft lip and palate and cleft orthognathic considerations.

Cleft lip and palate are among the most common congenital anomalies in humans. The treatment of this group of patients is best conducted by a multidisciplinary team approach. This article discusses the accepted treatment algorithm and timeline, as well as special considerations for this patient group when performing orthognathic surgery. Patients with cleft lip and palate often present with significantly more technical and challenging procedures, so clinicians should familiarize themselves with these special considerations before attempting to care for these individuals.