Comparison of sublingual lorazepam with intramuscular diazepam as sedatives during oral surgery

Sublingual lorazepam (2 to 3 mg) was compared with intramuscular diazepam (0.25 mg/kg) and placebo for sedation during oral surgery under local anesthesia. Sixty patients were randomly allocated into three groups in this double-blind, parallel study. The results from this trial show that sublingually administered lorazepam provided good sedation and anxiolysis. More side-effects, such as giddiness, dizziness, and ptosis, as well as profound and prolonged psychomotor impairment, were, however, found in the lorazepam group than in those patients who had received intramuscular diazepam (0.25 mg/kg) or placebo.     

Effects of intravenous midazolam and diazepam on patient response, percentage of oxygen saturation, and hemodynamic factors during periodontal surgery

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this double-masked study was to evaluate effects of intravenous sedation (IVS) using midazolam or diazepam during periodontal procedures on patient recall, psychomotor response, oxygen saturation, and hemodynamic factors. METHODS: Seventeen patients received either two or three scheduled periodontal surgeries under IVS with midazolam, diazepam, or placebo control. Patients were monitored throughout the procedure for hemodynamic variables, percent oxygen saturation, level of recall of common objects presented at baseline, and psychomotor function via the perceptual speed test (PST). RESULTS: Fifteen patients completed the study with average titrated dosages of 3.3 and 12.1 mg for midazolam and diazepam, respectively. Within the limitations of the study, there were few differences observed between the drugs with regard to hemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation, and overall percentage of objects recalled by patients sedated with either drug. However, midazolam was found to cause a greater incidence of amnesia lasting up to 30 minutes when compared to placebo. Patients on diazepam required an average of 15 minutes longer to recover accuracy as measured by the PST. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that diazepam and midazolam each may have advantages for IVS. In procedures lasting over 45 minutes, diazepam appears to be more clinically advantageous including a wider margin of safety during titration and gradual recovery. Midazolam may be used for shorter procedures for faster onset of action, predictable amnesic effects, and relatively rapid recovery.     

Rectal sedation with diazepam or midazolam during extractions of traumatized primary incisors: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial in Swedish children aged 1.5-3.5 years.

The aim of this study was to compare rectal sedation with diazepam and rectal sedation with midazolam with regard to sedative effect, treatment acceptance, and amnesia. Ninety children, 1.5-3.5 years of age, consecutively referred for extractions of traumatized primary incisors were randomly sedated with diazepam (0.7 mg/kg body weight) or midazolam (0.3 mg/kg body weight). The study design was randomized and double-blind. The level of sedation (state of mind) was assessed prior to and 10 and 60 min after administration of the drug by use of a behavioral scale (Wilton). The children's acceptance of procedures was assessed using another behavioral scale (Holst) during administration of the sedative, application of topical anesthesia, injection of a local anesthesia, and extraction. Amnesia was evaluated by the parents on the following day, with the child being asked standardized questions. Parental ratings of the child's and their own distress during and after treatment were made on a visual analog scale (VAS). No differences were found between the sedatives concerning level of sedation during treatment, acceptance of procedures, or amnesia. At discharge, 60 min after administration of the sedative, the children receiving diazepam were significantly more agitated (P=0.006). Parental rating on a VAS of the child's discomfort after treatment was significantly higher in the diazepam group (P=0.006). There was a tendency for children with poor acceptance of the rectal administration to display a more negative acceptance of the dental treatment. In conclusion, the present results, in combination with known pharmacological advantages, indicate that midazolam is preferable in outpatients when sedation is needed and amnesia is desirable.     

New intravenous sedative combinations in oral surgery: a comparative study of nalbuphine or pentazocine with midazolam

A randomised, double blind study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine or pentazocine with midazolam in patients undergoing minor oral surgery under local analgesia. Forty patients, aged between 17 and 48 years and in American Society of Anesthesiologists A.S.A. Class I participated. The results confirmed that the use of either nalbuphine (0.2 mg/kg) or pentazocine (0.5 mg/kg) allowed for a significant reduction in the mean dosage of midazolam required to produce satisfactory sedation when compared with trials where midazolam was used alone. Thus a mean midazolam, 0.087 mg/kg (nalbuphine group) or 0.081 mg/kg (pentazocine group) was required compared with 0.17 mg/kg (Aun et al., 1984) and 0.19 mg/kg (Skelley et al., 1984). Inadvertent overdosage with midazolam is prevented as the onset of sedation and its end-point are more obvious. No adverse cardiovascular or respiratory side effects were noted. The recovery rate for both groups was similar. Ninety-five per cent (39 of 40) of patients were able to walk unaided at 2 h post operation. At this time significantly more patients in the nalbuphine group were pain free (p less than 0.001). Both combinations provided excellent operating conditions with a high degree of safety and high patient acceptability. As the nalbuphine group enjoyed a more comfortable post-operative period this combination is favoured.     

Assessment of recovery in patients undergoing intravenous conscious sedation using bispectral analysis.

PURPOSE: The Bispectral Index (BIS) has been recently shown to objectively predict the level of sedation in patients undergoing conscious sedation. It was the goal of this study to directly compare the recovery profile of patients where the BIS was used to monitor sedation with a control group where the monitor was not used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients undergoing third molar extractions under intravenous conscious sedation were randomly assigned to 2 groups. In both groups, induction of sedation was performed using a standard dose of fentanyl (1.5 microg/kg) and midazolam (0.05 mg/kg). Propofol was then given in 10 to 20 mg boluses until a clinically desirable sedation level was achieved. In 1 group, the BIS was then monitored continually during surgery using a microcomputer (Aspect-1050 Monitor, Aspect Co, Natick, MA) and recorded at 5-minute intervals. The anesthetist (N.A.S.) provided additional propofol boluses to maintain a BIS level of 70 to 80. In the other group, the BIS sensor was applied, but the monitor was not used. In this group, the sedation was modified, and additional propofol was given based solely on the anesthetist's subjective assessment of the desired level of sedation (Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation [OAA/S] scale level 2 to 3). Additional boluses of 1 mg of midazolam were given during the procedure if patients required repeated boluses of propofol at less than 5-minute intervals to maintain the desired sedation level (BIS level of 70 to 80 or OAA/S level of 2 to 3). These additional midazolam boluses, as well as the time of the last sedative dose (propofol or midazolam) were recorded to study the effect of these factors on recovery. RESULTS: Of the 40 patients initially included in the study, 1 subject in the BIS-monitored group was excluded due to the loss of intravenous access at initiation of the case. For the remaining 39 subjects, 19 were assessed objectively using the BIS monitor, whereas 20 were assessed subjectively using the OAA/S scale. The BIS cases were slightly longer in duration than the OAA/S cases, lasting an average of 26 minutes versus 22 minutes. This difference was statistically nonsignificant (P =.19). Less propofol was used in the BIS cases, with an average of 98 mg for BIS cases versus 106 mg for OAA/S cases (P =.59). The total dose in mg/kg/min was significantly less in the BIS group (0.054 mg/kg/min) than in the OAA/S group (0.074 mg/kg/min; P =.0082). There was no significant difference in the amount of midazolam administered after induction between the 2 groups (P =.60). The surgeon, who was blinded to whether the monitor was used, ranked the third molar extractions more difficult in the BIS group (P =.05). However, patients in the BIS group were on average more cooperative, with better maintenance of muscle tone. The difference in these parameters were nonsignificant (P =.15 and .092, respectively). A positive Romberg test was obtained earlier in BIS patients, although this difference was nonsignificant (P =.097). The straight-line test was completed significantly sooner in BIS patients (P =.013). There was no significant difference between the BIS and OAA/S groups in perceptual speed (P =.55) or computation (P =.32). There was essentially no difference between groups in patient-assessed comfort or recall of the procedure. There were also no notable differences in anesthesia complications, return to activities of daily life, or pain medication use between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The BIS provides additional information for standard monitoring techniques that helps guide the administration of sedative-hypnotic agents. It appears that use of the BIS monitor can help to titrate the level of sedation so that less drugs are used to maintain the desired level. The trend toward an earlier return of motor function in BIS-monitored patients warrants further investigation.     

Rectal sedation with diazepam or midazolam during extractions of traumatized primary incisors: a prospective,randomized, double-blind trial in Swedish children aged 1.5-3.5 years

The aim of this study was to compare rectal sedation with diazepam and rectal sedation with midazolam with regard to sedative effect, treatment acceptance, and amnesia. Ninety children, 1.5-3.5 years of age, consecutively referred for extractions of traumatized primary incisors were randomly sedated with diazepam (0.7 mg/kg body weight) or midazolam (0.3 mg/kg body weight). The study design was randomized and double-blind. The level of sedation (state of mind) was assessed prior to and 10 and 60 min after administration of the drug by use of a behavioral scale (Wilton). The children's acceptance of procedures was assessed using another behavioral scale (Holst) during administration of the sedative, application of topical anesthesia, injection of a local anesthesia, and extraction. Amnesia was evaluated by the parents on the following day, with the child being asked standardized questions. Parental ratings of the child's and their own distress during and after treatment were made on a visual analog scale (VAS). No differences were found between the sedatives concerning level of sedation during treatment, acceptance of procedures, or amnesia. At discharge, 60 min after administration of the sedative, the children receiving diazepam were significantly more agitated (P = 0.006). Parental rating on a VAS of the child's discomfort after treatment was significantly higher in the diazepam group (P = 0.006). There was a tendency for children with poor acceptance of the rectal administration to display a more negative acceptance of the dental treatment. In conclusion, the present results, in combination with known pharmacological advantages, indicate that midazolam is preferable in outpatients when sedation is needed and amnesia is desirable.     

Midazolam, diazepam, and placebo as intravenous sedatives for dental surgery

This study was a comparison of the sedative and amnestic properties of midazolam and diazepam when administered for relief of patient discomfort during dental surgery. It was a double-blind placebo-controlled group study, which entailed the analysis of 60 patients randomly assigned to the three groups: midazolam, diazepam, and placebo. There were 20 patients in each group. Midazolam patients showed superior performance in the parameters of sedation and amnesia when compared to patients who were administered diazepam. Both groups showed better results than the placebo group, which had the best results with the Digit Symbol Substitution Test and the Trieger Test.     

Comparison of remifentanil with fentanyl for deep sedation in oral surgery.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare recovery for oral surgery patients given a deep sedation regimen of midazolam, propofol, and remifentanil with a standard control of fentanyl in place of remifentanil. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This investigation was designed as a randomized, prospective, single-blinded controlled study. Group 1, the control, received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg, fentanyl 1 microg/kg, and propofol initially at 140 microg/kg/min. Group 2 received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg, remifentanil: propofol (1:500) given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 40 microg/kg/min. Outcome measures included time to response to verbal command, Aldrete score = 9, Postanesthesia Discharge Scoring System = 7, and assessment by the Digit Symbol Substitution Test. RESULTS: Forty-seven subjects were entered in the study. Baseline findings were homogenous between the 2 groups. Subjects in group 2 recovered earlier (P < .005) and required less propofol for both the induction (0.8 +/- 0.4 versus 1.2 +/- 0.6 mg/kg; mean +/- SD, P < .01) and maintenance of deep sedation (46 +/- 9 versus 131 +/- 17 microg/kg/min; P < .005). There were minor differences in vital signs. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that this remifentanil regimen provided significantly more rapid recovery and used significantly less propofol compared with the fentanyl regimen.     

Comparing the safety, efficacy and recovery of intranasal midazolam vs. oral chloral hydrate and promethazine.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety, efficacy and recovery time of intranasal midazolam spray administered using an atomizer to orally administered chloral hydrate and promethazine for the sedation of pediatric dental patients. METHODS: A randomized double-blind crossover study design was utilized in which 31 patients (mean age 41.8 months, range 26-58 months) underwent two restorative dental appointments. At one appointment, subjects received 0.2 mg/kg intranasal midazolam; at the other appointment subjects received 62.5 mg/kg chloral hydrate with 12.5 mg promethazine. Administered at each appointment was 25%-50% N(2)0/0(2). Physiologic parameters (heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation) and behavior assessments (crying, movement, sleep) using the Houpt Sedation Rating Scale were recorded at baseline and every five minutes during treatment. Overall behavior was assessed at baseline and at the end of treatment. Following treatment, a modified Vancouver Recovery Scale was used to determine the length of time it took each subject to meet established discharge criteria. RESULTS: There were no clinically significant differences in physiologic parameters, however a statistically significant decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure was observed in patients sedated with chloral hydrate/promethazine. There were no significant differences in behavior between groups. Patients sedated with intranasal midazolam slept less and recovered quicker than patients sedated with oral chloral hydrate/promethazine. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal midazolam administered using an atomizer is as safe (as assessed by physiologic parameters) and effective (as assessed by behavior ratings) as oral chloral hydrate/promethazine for conscious sedation of pediatric dental patients.     

A study of the effectiveness of oral midazolam sedation for orthodontic extraction of permanent teeth in children: a prospective,randomised, controlled,crossover trial

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of o:ral midazolam sedation for orthodontic extraction of permanent teeth in children. DESIGN: A prospective, randomised, controlled, crossover trial. METHODS: A total of 26 children aged 10-16 (ASA I), referred for orthodontic extraction of premolar or canine teeth under sedation, were included in the study. Each child required two treatment sessions for the extraction of equivalent teeth on opposite sides of the mouth. Each subject was sedated with either ora midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) or nitrous oxide and oxygen (30%/70%) at the first visit and the alternative form at the second visit. At each visit two teeth were extracted, one upper and one lower. Heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, respiration rate, sedation and behavioural scores were recorded every five minutes. Overall behaviour, patient acceptance and patient satisfaction were recorded at the end of treatment. RESULTS: Of the 26 children included in the study there were 12 males and 14 females. The mean age was 12.5 years. The mean heart rate and respiratory rate for both groups were similar and within acceptable clinical limits. The lowest mean arterial oxygen saturation levels for nitrous oxide and midazolam sedation were 97.7% and 95.0% respectively. Although midazolam caused greater oxygen desaturation, the range (91%-100%) was within safe limits for conscious sedation. The mean level of sedation was greater in the midazolam group compared with the nitrous oxide group and all but one case completed treatment. A total of 23 patients (88%) said they would be prepared to have ora midazolam sedation again and 17 (65%) actually preferred oral midazolam to nitrous oxide sedation. CONCLUSION: Oral midazolam (0.5mg/kg) appears to be a safe and acceptable form of sedation for 10-16 year old paediatric dental patients.     

Rectal ketamine and midazolam for premedication in pediatric dentistry

Rectally administered midazolam (0.30 mg/kg) and ketamine (5 mg/kg) were compared for preanesthetic medication in children undergoing dental extractions. Sixty patients between the ages 2 and 9 years were randomly allocated to three groups in this double-blind study. In one group of patients who received ketamine rectally, intravenous midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) also was administered immediately after induction of anesthesia. The results from this trial show that 30 minutes after rectal administration of the two drugs, good anxiolysis, sedation, and cooperation were obtained in most patients. Although midazolam appeared to be marginally more efficacious than ketamine in the majority of assessments made and seemed to have less adverse effects, no statistically significant differences could be shown. Ketamine showed a slight decrease and midazolam a slight increase in average blood pressures after premedication. These blood pressure differences were, however, considered to be of little clinical importance.     

咪达唑仑口服镇静术在不同年龄段儿童口腔治疗中的效果评价

目的 总结咪达唑仑口服镇静术对口腔诊疗不配合的儿童患者的临床效果,探讨年龄因素对咪达唑仑治疗效果和安全性的影响.方法 选取109例对口腔诊疗不配合的儿童患者,在门诊环境下实施咪达唑仑口服镇静术辅助诊疗,给药剂量为0.50～0.75 mg/kg,记录各项评价指标并对≤3岁组(40例)和＞3岁组(69例)的治疗效果和安全性进行分析、比较.结果 镇静治疗总成功率为71%(77/109),≤3岁组治疗成功率[58%(23/40)]显著低于3岁以上组[78%(54/69)](x2=5.26,P＜0.05);总不良反应发生率为17%(19/109),≤3岁组不良反应发生率[28%(11/40)]显著高于3岁以上组[12%(8/69)],x2=4.24,P＜0.05.结论 咪达唑仑口服镇静术对3岁以上患者治疗效果好,不良反应相对少;口服咪达唑仑0.50～0.75 mg/kg的剂量范围安全有效.     

Comparing efficacy and safety of four intravenous sedation regimens in dental outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Management of patients' fear and anxiety during dental treatment is a primary concern of dental practitioners. Pharmacological strategies used in outpatient dental settings must be both safe and effective. Regimens of intravenously administered sedative drugs were evaluated in a collaborative, multicenter study of outpatients undergoing removal of impacted third molars. METHODS: A total of 997 patients randomly received one of five treatments: placebo; midazolam administered to a clinical endpoint of conscious sedation (mean dose, 8.6 milligrams); midazolam plus additional midazolam as needed during the procedure (mean total dose, 12.2 mg); fentanyl (1.4 micrograms/kilogram) plus midazolam to achieve the same endpoint of conscious sedation (mean dose, 5.7 mg); or fentanyl (1.4 (micrograms/kg), midazolam (mean dose, 5.8 mg) and methohexital as needed during the procedure (mean dose, 61.0 mg). RESULTS: Each drug regimen reduced anxiety during surgery in comparison with placebo, with the combination of midazolam, fentanyl and methohexital resulting in significantly less anxiety in comparison with the other treatment groups. Pain reports by patients during surgery also were reduced significantly by the combination of fentanyl, midazolam and methohexital. Patients' global evaluations of the efficacy of sedation ranked midazolam with supplemental midazolam and the combination of fentanyl, midazolam and methohexital as significantly more efficacious than the other two drug regiments. The authors noted transient respiratory depression in patients in the two opioid-treated groups, but no other physiological changes were detected. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide evidence that the drugs and doses evaluated resulted in therapeutic benefit to dental outpatients, with minimal incidence of potentially serious adverse effects. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results of this large-scale study provide assurance to both the public and the dental profession of the safety of parenteral sedation with these drugs and combinations of these drugs when titrated slowly in the recommended doses by appropriately trained dentists.     

Comparison of three conscious sedation regimens for pediatric dental patients

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical success of three conscious sedation regimens for pediatric dental patients. A clinical trial was performed wherein dental treatment was administered to pediatric patients ASA I and II under conscious sedation.. Fifty-four children were divided into three groups of 18 patients each, randomly assigned Group A received hydroxyzine (2 mg/kg 2 h before treatment and a subsequent dose of 1 mg/kg 20 min before treatment) orally; group B received 0.50 mg/kg midazolam mixed with 1.5 mg/kg hydroxyzine 20 min before treatment orally; group C received chloral hydrate, 50 mg/kg mixed with 1.5 mg/kg hydroxyzine 20 min before treatment orally. The Ohio State Behavioral Rating Scale (OSBRS) showed statistically significant differences between groups B and C with respect to group A. The regimens of midazolam or chloral hydrate mixed with hydroxyzine represent excellent choices for conscious sedation regimens for pediatric dental patients.     

Preanesthetic medication with rectal midazolam in children undergoing dental extractions

Three different dosages (0.25, 0.35, and 0.45 mg/kg) of rectally administered midazolam were compared with each other and with placebo for preanesthetic medication in children undergoing dental extractions. Eighty patients between the ages of 2 and 10 years were randomly allocated into four groups in this double-blind study. The results from this trial show that 30 minutes after rectal administration of all doses of midazolam, good anxiolysis, sedation, and cooperation were obtained in most patients. A high prevalence (23%) of disinhibition reactions was observed, particularly in the 0.45 mg/kg group. For this reason, 0.25 or 0.35 mg/kg appears to be the dose of choice when rectal midazolam is used for premedication in children.     

Evaluation of patient-controlled remifentanil application in third molar surgery.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of patient-controlled remifentanil application in combination with intravenous (IV) midazolam sedation during third molar surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty healthy patients with symmetrically placed impacted bilateral mandibular third molars were included in this prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over, randomized clinical study. A bolus dose of 0.05 mg/kg intravenous midazolam was applied to each patient. Remifentanil was administered (group MR) by patient controlled infusion (PCI) either in the first or the second operation. In the other operation, a placebo (group MP) was given in the same manner. Perioperative blood samples were obtained to determine the changes in the stress hormone (aldosterone, adrenocorticotropic hormone [ACTH], renin) levels. Vital signs and oxygen saturation were recorded. Ramsey's sedation scale and modified Steward's recovery scale was used for evaluation of consciousness. Pain, patient satisfaction, cooperation score, reaction to local anesthetic injection, and degree of amnesia were also assessed. RESULTS: Remifentanil significantly increased the level of sedation, patient cooperation, and satisfaction; decreased the oxygen saturation, heart rate, and pain. While renin levels were significantly different, ACTH and aldosteron levels did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Aldosterone and ACTH levels significantly decreased, whereas the renin level significantly increased in both groups during the operations. Remifentanil did not significantly alter the recovery time. CONCLUSION: Patient-controlled remifentanil application in combination with IV midazolam sedation seems to be a safe and reliable method, which effectively eliminates pain and provides a satisfactory sedation level, without any serious side effect.     

咪达唑仑作为口腔颌面外科麻醉前用药的探讨

目的研究咪达唑仑用于口腔颌面外科麻醉前用药的效果。方法60例患者随机等分为Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ组,麻醉前30min分别肌肉注射咪达唑仑0.06mg/kg、地西泮0.12mg/kg、苯巴比妥钠3mg/kg,观察镇静和抗焦虑作用、对循环和呼吸的影响以及不良反应。结果Ⅰ组用药后5min始出现BIS明显下降、Ramsay镇静评分明显增大,用药后30min时AVAT和SAI数值明显降低(P<0.05),Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组无明显改变;3组的循环和呼吸功能无明显变化,也未见明显不良反应。结论咪达唑仑作为麻醉前用药,镇静和抗焦虑作用确切,无明显不良反应,值得推广应用。     

Effects of low-dose midazolam with propofol in patient-controlled sedation (PCS) for apicectomy

We studied the effects of low-dose midazolam with propofol for patient control sedation (PCS) in 30 healthy (ASA grade I) patients who were randomly allocated into two equal groups (n = 15 in each). They were given a propofol infusion of 2mg/kg/h after a bolus dose of 0.7 mg/kg. The second group was given the 2mg/kg/h propofol infusion after a dose of midazolam 0.03 mg/kg and a bolus dose of propofol 0.7 mg/kg. The standard dose for PCS was propofol 0.2mg/kg in both groups. Clinical data were taken and haemodynamic variables, and oxygen saturation were recorded before and on the 5th, 10th, 20th, and 30th minutes during the operations. The level of sedation, amnesia and conditions of each patient were evaluated during the study. Patients' satisfaction was recorded using a modified visual analogue scale (VAS). All results were evaluated statistically. We conclude that low-dose midazolam with propofol during PCS neither reduced oxygen saturation nor prolonged the time of discharge. Low-dose midazolam with propofol also improved the acceptability and comfort for patients and made the operation easier, which makes it preferable to propofol alone.     

A comparative study of intravenous diazepam and midazolam for oral surgery

Intravenous diazepam was compared with intravenous midazolam for conscious sedation in a single-blind study of 50 Hong Kong Chinese patients acting as their own controls. Verrill's sign was used as the end-point of sedation, and bilateral, similarly impacted lower third molars served as the surgical model. The drugs produced comparable levels of sedation, stable vital signs, and good operating conditions in all patients. Midazolam had numerous advantages over diazepam: more rapid onset of sedation, less pain during injection, profound anterograde amnesia, and fewer postoperative complications. The incidence of thrombophlebitis was low with both drugs and appears to be so in Chinese in general. A significant majority of the patients preferred sedation to other techniques and midazolam to diazepam.     

Butorphanol/diazepam compared to meperidine/diazepam for sedation in oral maxillofacial surgery: a double-blind evaluation

Butorphanol and meperidine, each combined with titrated diazepam, 10 to 20 mg, were compared in a randomized, double-blind trial for their sedative-analgesic effects. The fifty patients underwent multiple dental extractions under local anesthesia and sedation in an outpatient clinic. Butorphanol was significantly superior to meperidine with respect to the diazepam dose required to achieve the target level of sedation, the total diazepam dose administered, the clinical level of sedation, the surgeon's overall evaluations of effectiveness and of sedation level, and several patient evaluation parameters measured at discharge from the recovery room and at follow-up interview. All study drugs were well tolerated. Butorphanol offers clinical advantages over meperidine when combined with diazepam for sedation analgesia in outpatient oral surgery.