CAP Reform vs WTO: Crop Diversification or Crop Rotation? : Legal opinion prepared by Dr. Christian Häberli at the request of APRODEV, the Association of World Council of Churches related Development Organisations in Europe

The European Commission’s proposals for the Legislative Framework of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the period 2014-2020 include, inter alia, the introduction of a “strong greening component”. For the first time, all EU farmers in receipt of support are to “go beyond the requirements of cross compliance and deliver environmental and climate benefits as part of their everyday activities crop diversification as a contribution to all EU farmers in receipt of support go beyond the requirements of cross compliance and deliver environmental and climate benefits as part of their everyday activities.” In a legal opinion prepared at the request of APRODEV, the Association of World Council of Churches related Development Organisations in Europe (www.aprodev.eu), Christian Häberli examines the WTO implications of this proposal, as compared with an alternative proposal to rather link direct payments to crop rotation. The conclusions are twofold: 1. Crop rotation is at least as likely to be found Green Box-compatible as crop diversification. Moreover, it will be more difficult to argue that crop diversification is “not more than minimally production-distorting” because it entails for most farmers less cost and work. 2. Even if (either of the two cropping schemes) were to be found “amber”, the EU would not have to relinquish this conditionality. This is because the direct payments involved would in all likelihood not, together with the other price support instruments, exceed the amount available under the presently scheduled maximum.

Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks.

PURPOSE The aim of the paper is to identify, review, analyze, and summarize available evidence in three areas on the use of cross-sectional imaging, specifically maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in pre- and postoperative dental implant therapy: (1) Available clinical use guidelines, (2) indications and contraindications for use, and (3) assessment of associated radiation dose risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three focused questions were developed to address the aims. A systematic literature review was performed using a PICO-based search strategy based on MeSH key words specific to each focused question of English-language publications indexed in the MEDLINE database retrospectively from October 31, 2012. These results were supplemented by a hand search and gray literature search. RESULTS Twelve publications were identified providing guidelines for the use of cross-sectional radiography, particularly CBCT imaging, for the pre- and/or postoperative assessment of potential dental implant sites. The publications discovered by the PICO strategy (43 articles), hand (12), and gray literature searches (1) for the second focus question regarding indications and contraindications for CBCT use in implant dentistry were either cohort or case-controlled studies. For the third question on the assessment of associated radiation dose risk, a total of 22 articles were included. Publication characteristics and themes were summarized in tabular format. CONCLUSIONS The reported indications for CBCT use in implant dentistry vary from preoperative analysis regarding specific anatomic considerations, site development using grafts, and computer-assisted treatment planning to postoperative evaluation focusing on complications due to damage of neurovascular structures. Effective doses for different CBCT devices exhibit a wide range with the lowest dose being almost 100 times less than the highest dose. Significant dose reduction can be achieved by adjusting operating parameters, including exposure factors and reducing the field of view (FOV) to the actual region of interest.

Minimal intervention dentistry: part 5. Ultra-conservative approach to the treatment of erosive and abrasive lesions.

The therapeutic management of tooth wear lesions does not require the removal of diseased tissue. Nevertheless, diverse etiological factors may be associated with the condition and they could be difficult to eliminate; this has to be considered when planning therapy. Interceptive procedures should be reserved for such situations while regular monitoring is recommended for other cases, in accordance with advice provided for using the Basic Erosive Wear Examination (BEWE). Direct and indirect adhesive procedures with composite resins allow treatment of most clinical situations, including even extensive restorations. The possibility of managing subsequent interventions should be considered when planning the initial therapeutic approach.