Literature DB >> 20849497

A comparison of four sedation techniques for pediatric dental surgery.

Christopher Heard1, Jayson Smith, Paul Creighton, Prashant Joshi, Doron Feldman, Jerrold Lerman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We prospectively assessed the efficacy and side effects of four sedation techniques in our dental clinic: oral midazolam, intranasal (IN) midazolam, IN midazolam combined with oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC), and IN midazolam combined with IN sufentanil. MATERIALS &
METHODS: With IRB approval, a nonrandomized open label study of moderate sedation in children undergoing dental surgery was administered during a 6 -month period. The sedation regimen was rotated daily at the anesthesiologist's discretion. Each sedation was monitored by a research nurse who assessed the quality of sedation and the frequency of complications. All children were monitored during the procedure and recovery for at least 20 min, before discharge based on the University of Michigan Sedation and Ohio State behavior rating scores.
RESULTS: One hundred and two children were sedated in the dental clinic during this period. The sedation was successful in 73% (range 64% to 88%) of the children. The time to onset was greatest with OTFC (37 min) and least with IN midazolam (17 min) compared with the other two groups (20 and 30 min). Recovery after OTFC was prolonged (39 min) significantly compared with the other three groups (26.5-30 min). Efficacy of sedation and frequency of complications (9% incidence of nausea and 6% of mild hemoglobin desaturation) were similar among the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: All four sedation regimens were equally effective in this cohort of healthy children. The onset and recovery with OTFC was significantly delayed compared with the other regimens. The frequency of side effects was small; there were no side effects in the PO midazolam group.
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20849497     DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2010.03402.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth        ISSN: 1155-5645            Impact factor:   2.556


  7 in total

1.  A comparative study of propofol alone and propofol combined with midazolam for dental treatments in special needs patients.

Authors:  I-Hsin Lin; Mao-Suan Huang; Pei-Yu Wang; Ta-Sen Huang; See-Yen Chong; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Hung-Huey Tsai
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 1.817

2.  Sedation of children undergoing dental treatment.

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

3.  Comparative evaluation of bispectral index system after sedation with midazolam and propofol combined with remifentanil versus ketamine in uncooperative during dental procedures.

Authors:  Alireza Eshghi; Mehrnaz Mohammadpour; Nasser Kaviani; Dana Tahririan; Najmeh Akhlaghi
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb

4.  Comparison of sedative effects of oral midazolam/chloral hydrate and midazolam/promethazine in pediatric dentistry.

Authors:  Majid Mehran; Ghassem Ansari; Mojtaba Vahid Golpayegani; Shahnaz Shayeghi; Leila Shafiei
Journal:  J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects       Date:  2018-09-18

5.  Intranasal Premedication Effect of Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam on the Behavior of 2-6-Year-Old Uncooperative Children in Dental Clinic.

Authors:  Alireza Mahdavi; Masoud Fallahinejad Ghajari; Ghassem Ansari; Leila Shafiei
Journal:  J Dent (Tehran)       Date:  2018-03

6.  An evaluation of intranasal sufentanil and dexmedetomidine for pediatric dental sedation.

Authors:  James M Hitt; Toby Corcoran; Kelly Michienzi; Paul Creighton; Christopher Heard
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 6.321

Review 7.  Intranasal sedatives in pediatric dentistry.

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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.