Literature DB >> 10323118

A pilot study of the efficacy of oral midazolam for sedation in pediatric dental patients.

D A Haas1, S A Nenniger, R Yacobi, J G Magathan, H A Grad, P E Copp, M D Charendoff.   

Abstract

Oral midazolam is being used for conscious sedation in dentistry with little documentation assessing its efficacy. In order to accumulate preliminary data, a randomized, double-blind, controlled, crossover, multi-site pilot study was conducted. The objective was to determine if 0.6 mg/kg of oral midazolam was an equally effective or superior means of achieving conscious sedation in the uncooperative pediatric dental patient, compared with a commonly used agent, 50 mg/kg of oral chloral hydrate. Twenty-three children in three clinics who required dentistry with local anesthetic and were determined to exhibit behavior rated as "negative" or "definitely negative" based on the Frankl scale were assessed. They were evaluated with respect to acceptance of medication; initial level of anxiety at each appointment; level of sedation prior to and acceptance of local anesthetic; movement and crying during the procedure; and overall behavior. The results showed that the group randomly assigned to receive midazolam had a significantly greater initial level of anxiety for that appointment (P < 0.02), a finding that could clearly confound further determination of the efficacy of these drugs. Patients given oral midazolam had an increased level of sedation prior to the administration of local anesthetic compared with those given chloral hydrate (P < 0.015). No statistically significant differences were noted in any of the other parameters. The age of the patient was found to have no correlation with the difference in overall behavior (r = -0.09). These preliminary data warrant further clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 10323118      PMCID: PMC2153450     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Prog        ISSN: 0003-3006


  26 in total

1.  Sample size calculations for clinical pharmacology studies.

Authors:  P D Stolley; B L Strom
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 6.875

2.  Life-threatening reactions after pedodontic sedation: an assessment of narcotic, local anesthetic, and antiemetic drug interaction.

Authors:  J M Goodson; P A Moore
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 3.634

3.  Comparison of chloral hydrate and midazolam by mouth as premedicants in children undergoing otolaryngological surgery.

Authors:  L Saarnivaara; L Lindgren; U M Klemola
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 9.166

4.  Difficult children: the practical experience of 145 private practitioners.

Authors:  P Weinstein; P K Domoto; T Getz
Journal:  Pediatr Dent       Date:  1981-12       Impact factor: 1.874

Review 5.  Therapeutic assessment of chloral hydrate premedication for pediatric dentistry.

Authors:  P A Moore
Journal:  Anesth Prog       Date:  1984 Sep-Oct

6.  Premedication with flunitrazepam, diazepam and placebo in the apprehensive child.

Authors:  F Gallardo; G Cornejo; B Auil
Journal:  ASDC J Dent Child       Date:  1984 May-Jun

7.  Ventilation, ventilatory carbon dioxide and hormonal response during halothane anaesthesia and surgery in children after midazolam premedication.

Authors:  A J Charlton; D J Hatch; S G Lindahl; J M Phythyon; N E Nordén
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 9.166

8.  Midazolam versus atropine plus pethidine as premedication in children.

Authors:  S Sjövall; J Kanto; E Iisalo; J J Himberg; L Kangas
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 6.955

9.  Midazolam in paediatric anaesthesia.

Authors:  W H Cole
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  1982-02       Impact factor: 1.669

10.  Midazolam versus hydroxyzine as intramuscular premedicant.

Authors:  R J Fragen; D I Funk; M J Avram; C Costello; K DeBruine
Journal:  Can Anaesth Soc J       Date:  1983-03
View more
  6 in total

1.  A prospective study of 2 sedation regimens in children: chloral hydrate, meperidine, and hydroxyzine versus midazolam, meperidine, and hydroxyzine.

Authors:  Marianne M Sheroan; Diane C Dilley; Warner J Lucas; William F Vann
Journal:  Anesth Prog       Date:  2006

2.  Two cases of overdose of trichlofos.

Authors:  Harish Sethi; A K Simalti
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2016-03-29

3.  Sedation of children undergoing dental treatment.

Authors:  Paul F Ashley; Mohsin Chaudhary; Liege Lourenço-Matharu
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-12-17

4.  Comparison of oral and buccal midazolam for pediatric dental sedation: a randomized, cross-over, clinical trial for efficacy, acceptance and safety.

Authors:  Sara Tavassoli-Hojjati; Majid Mehran; Roza Haghgoo; Monireh Tohid-Rahbari; Rahil Ahmadi
Journal:  Iran J Pediatr       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 0.364

5.  Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients.

Authors:  Lida Toomarian; Katayoun Salem; Ghassem Ansari
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2013-03

Review 6.  Intranasal sedatives in pediatric dentistry.

Authors:  Maha A AlSarheed
Journal:  Saudi Med J       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.484

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.