Dae-Seung Ryu1, Deok-Won Lee2, Sung Chul Choi3, In-Hwan Oh4. 1. Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: verycutebear@khu.ac.kr. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to establish a proper sedative protocol of dexmedetomidine for outpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study compared compare patients' pain, satisfaction, adverse events, and sedation depth during extraction of third molars using a sedative protocol of intravenous (IV; 1.0 μg/kg) versus intranasal (IN; 1.5 μg/kg) administration of dexmedetomidine. In total, 240 patients were randomized, 160 patients receiveddexmedetomidine, and data, including the amount of agent used, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, adverse events, VAS score of patient satisfaction, and bispectral index, were recorded. RESULTS: Patients in the dexmedetomidine groups reported lower VAS pain scores and higher VAS satisfaction scores than patients in the local anesthesia group. There were no statistically meaningful differences between dexmedetomidine groups. Sedation with the IV route was slightly deeper than with the IN route. However, there were no statistically meaningful differences. CONCLUSION: IN or IV administration of dexmedetomidine is recommended as an effective, safe, and competent protocol in outpatient sedative surgeries.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to establish a proper sedative protocol of dexmedetomidine for outpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study compared compare patients' pain, satisfaction, adverse events, and sedation depth during extraction of third molars using a sedative protocol of intravenous (IV; 1.0 μg/kg) versus intranasal (IN; 1.5 μg/kg) administration of dexmedetomidine. In total, 240 patients were randomized, 160 patients received dexmedetomidine, and data, including the amount of agent used, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, adverse events, VAS score of patient satisfaction, and bispectral index, were recorded. RESULTS:Patients in the dexmedetomidine groups reported lower VAS pain scores and higher VAS satisfaction scores than patients in the local anesthesia group. There were no statistically meaningful differences between dexmedetomidine groups. Sedation with the IV route was slightly deeper than with the IN route. However, there were no statistically meaningful differences. CONCLUSION: IN or IV administration of dexmedetomidine is recommended as an effective, safe, and competent protocol in outpatient sedative surgeries.