Michael Wood1. 1. Leagrave Dental Sedation Clinic, Luton, Bedfordshire. Michael.wood@painless-dentist.co.uk
Abstract
AIM: To add to the evidence base for safe and effective paediatric conscious sedation techniques in primary dental care. OBJECTIVE: To consider the safety and effectiveness of an alternative sedation technique for facilitating dental treatment in anxious children, thereby avoiding dental general anaesthetic. SETTING: Leagrave Dental Sedation Clinic. A primary care-based general and referral clinic for anxious patients, special care dentistry and oral surgery. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective service evaluation of 114 selected anxious children requiring invasive dental treatment. Each child was administered 0.25 mg/kg intranasal midazolam using a concentrated 40 mg/ml midazolam (INM) in 2% lignocaine solution. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Successful completion of intended dental treatment with a child who is co-operative and who meets the UK accepted definition of conscious sedation. RESULTS: 57% of the children found the administration of the new formulation acceptable. Of the 114 patients who received INM, 104 completed the treatment (91%). The 10 children who could not complete the treatment with INM were converted to intravenous sedation and treatment was completed successfully at the same appointment. During treatment there was no desaturation and only one patient desaturated briefly in the recovery area. Parents rated the technique acceptable in 76% of cases and would have the procedure repeated in 83% of cases. Parents rated this technique as having 8.3 out of 10 with only 5 parents awarding a score of less than 7 out of 10. Side effects included blurred vision, sneezing, headaches, restlessness with one patient having post-operative nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION: In selected cases intranasal sedation provides a safe and effective alternative for dental GA in short invasive procedures limited to one or two quadrants in children. Other techniques, e.g., oral and intravenous sedation, appear to have a much higher acceptability of administration. This technique may be useful if inhalation sedation, oral sedation or intravenous sedation is considered and the child is still unco-operative, either as a technique on its own or to facilitate cannulation for intravenous sedation. It is recommended that this technique should only be used by dentists skilled in intravenous paediatric sedation with midazolam with the appropriate staff training and equipment at their disposal.
AIM: To add to the evidence base for safe and effective paediatric conscious sedation techniques in primary dental care. OBJECTIVE: To consider the safety and effectiveness of an alternative sedation technique for facilitating dental treatment in anxious children, thereby avoiding dental general anaesthetic. SETTING: Leagrave Dental Sedation Clinic. A primary care-based general and referral clinic for anxious patients, special care dentistry and oral surgery. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective service evaluation of 114 selected anxious children requiring invasive dental treatment. Each child was administered 0.25 mg/kg intranasal midazolam using a concentrated 40 mg/ml midazolam (INM) in 2% lignocaine solution. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Successful completion of intended dental treatment with a child who is co-operative and who meets the UK accepted definition of conscious sedation. RESULTS: 57% of the children found the administration of the new formulation acceptable. Of the 114 patients who received INM, 104 completed the treatment (91%). The 10 children who could not complete the treatment with INM were converted to intravenous sedation and treatment was completed successfully at the same appointment. During treatment there was no desaturation and only one patient desaturated briefly in the recovery area. Parents rated the technique acceptable in 76% of cases and would have the procedure repeated in 83% of cases. Parents rated this technique as having 8.3 out of 10 with only 5 parents awarding a score of less than 7 out of 10. Side effects included blurred vision, sneezing, headaches, restlessness with one patient having post-operative nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION: In selected cases intranasal sedation provides a safe and effective alternative for dental GA in short invasive procedures limited to one or two quadrants in children. Other techniques, e.g., oral and intravenous sedation, appear to have a much higher acceptability of administration. This technique may be useful if inhalation sedation, oral sedation or intravenous sedation is considered and the child is still unco-operative, either as a technique on its own or to facilitate cannulation for intravenous sedation. It is recommended that this technique should only be used by dentists skilled in intravenous paediatric sedation with midazolam with the appropriate staff training and equipment at their disposal.
Authors: Daniel S Tsze; Maria Ieni; Daniel B Fenster; John Babineau; Joshua Kriger; Bruce Levin; Peter S Dayan Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 5.721