OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to provide an evaluation of the combined intranasal/intravenous midazolam sedation technique. It involved adults with severe disabilities which prevented them from being able to co-operate with dental treatment and intravenous cannulation for sedation. METHOD: Following a previous retrospective audit, additional treatment centres were enrolled and a standardised form used to collect prospective data about the effectiveness of the technique in facilitating cannulation, dental examination and treatment. Data was also collected on safety and patient acceptability. RESULTS: In a total of 316 sedation episodes in primary and secondary care settings, cannulation was achieved in 96.2% (304). Dental examination and treatment was able to be carried out without major interference from the patient in 78.8% (241) episodes. Adverse sedation events occurred in 6.0% (19), the most frequent being desaturation which was easily managed. There were no incidents with serious sequelae. Favourable acceptability ratings were given by carers regarding advantages of ease of administration and speed of onset of the intranasal dose, plus reduction in the stress associated with cannulation and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further evidence to support the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of this technique. The authors suggest this provides sufficient basis to justify its use by suitably trained dental practitioners in primary care as part of the spectrum of anxiety and behaviour management for this group.
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to provide an evaluation of the combined intranasal/intravenous midazolam sedation technique. It involved adults with severe disabilities which prevented them from being able to co-operate with dental treatment and intravenous cannulation for sedation. METHOD: Following a previous retrospective audit, additional treatment centres were enrolled and a standardised form used to collect prospective data about the effectiveness of the technique in facilitating cannulation, dental examination and treatment. Data was also collected on safety and patient acceptability. RESULTS: In a total of 316 sedation episodes in primary and secondary care settings, cannulation was achieved in 96.2% (304). Dental examination and treatment was able to be carried out without major interference from the patient in 78.8% (241) episodes. Adverse sedation events occurred in 6.0% (19), the most frequent being desaturation which was easily managed. There were no incidents with serious sequelae. Favourable acceptability ratings were given by carers regarding advantages of ease of administration and speed of onset of the intranasal dose, plus reduction in the stress associated with cannulation and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further evidence to support the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of this technique. The authors suggest this provides sufficient basis to justify its use by suitably trained dental practitioners in primary care as part of the spectrum of anxiety and behaviour management for this group.