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.     

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.     

A clinical trial of efficacy and safety of inhalation sedation with a 50% nitrous oxide/oxygen premix (Kalinox™) in general practice

The current study aimed to verify if the safety and effectiveness of inhalation sedation with 50% nitrous oxide in oxygen (N₂O/O₂) is maintained when the premix is administrated by trained general practitioners in their dental surgeries compared to its use in the hospital. Success (completion of planned treatment), cooperation (modified Venham scale), and adverse events were recorded. The acceptability of the technique to the patients, the level of patient cooperation, the ease of use, and the satisfaction of the dentist were also evaluated. Thirty-three general practitioners included 549 patients and recorded 638 sessions of N₂O/O₂ sedation for dental treatment. Of the sessions, 93.7% were successful in terms of both sedation and treatment. Patient cooperation was seen to improve under N₂O/O₂ sedation, and for 91% of the sessions, the patients declared that they would like future treatment to be undertaken in the same way. No serious adverse events were recorded. Minor adverse events were noted for 10% of the sessions (behavioural, vagal, and digestive disorders). These results were similar to those found for sessions undertaken in hospital practice. The main difference was in the type of patient treated—more patients received N₂O/O₂ sedation in general practice for a one-off indication or for dental phobia, and more patients with intellectual disability and more pre-cooperative children were treated in hospital practice. This study gives strong supporting evidence for the safety and effectiveness of inhalation sedation using 50% N₂O/O₂ in general dental practice for healthy patients.     

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.     

Comparison of the efficacy of oral midazolam alone versus midazolam and meperidine in the pediatric dental patient

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare midazolam alone (Group A: 1 mg/kg) vs midazolam plus meperidine (Group B: 0.5 and 1 mg/kg, respectively) in regard to physiology and behavior of young children sedated for dental restorative care. METHODS: Twenty healthy children who met selection criteria were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups and subsequently treated in a prospective, crossover design. All sedative agents were administered orally, and all sedations included 50% nitrous oxide administered via a nasal hood. Heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and behavior were recorded at 8 procedural or time periods during the visits. Chi-square and ANOVA were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: No difference in physiology or behavior was found between groups. However, higher heart rates and disruptive behaviors occurred more frequently during or after local anesthesia administration. CONCLUSIONS: Oral midazolam alone is just as effective as midazolam with meperidine. Disruptive behaviors accounted for increased heart rates.     

Comparison of chloral hydrate, meperidine, and hydroxyzine to midazolam regimens for oral sedation of pediatric dental patients

PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the effects of oral administration of a combination of chloral hydrate (CH) 25 mg/kg, hydroxyzine (H) 1 mg/kg, and meperidine (M) 1 mg/kg to midazolam 0.65 mg/kg using 50% nitrous oxide (N2O) on behavioral and physiological parameters of young children sedated for dental procedures. Factors associated with sedation effectiveness were identified, including age, preoperative behavior, and type of procedure. METHODS: Records of 116 sedation sessions of 66 healthy, uncooperative children ages 24 to 60 months at The University of Iowa Centers for Disabilities and Development were reviewed. Patients received 1 of the 2 regimens. Intraoperative behavior was rated using a dichotomous scale. Physiological variables including heart rate and oxygen saturation were recorded at baseline and at 10-minute intervals of the session. Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 9. RESULTS: Overall, 81 % of sessions were rated successful. Sedation sessions using CH+H+M combination had significantly higher success rate (P<.01, odds ratio=3.38, 95% confidence interval= 1.06 to 7.15) compared to sessions with midazolam. Sedation success was not associated with age, preoperative behavior, or type of dental procedure performed. Physiological variables were within the normal range for both regimens, although midazolam regimen recorded higher heart rates. CONCLUSIONS: CH+H+M combination using 25 mg/kg CH resulted in significantly more effective sedation sessions compared to midazolam. Both regimens used 50% N2O and were found to be safe.     

Comparison of two different dosages of hydroxyzine for sedation in the paediatric dental patient

AIM: This study compared the effect of two different dosages of hydroxyzine supported by 50% nitrous oxide inhalation sedation in child patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty uncooperative healthy children with an age range of 31-120 months were included in this study. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups. The patients in group 1 were given 20 mg of hydroxyzine (Atarax) 24 h preoperatively and on the operation day, 3.7 mg/kg hydroxyzine was administered orally. The patients in group 2 received 3.7 mg/kg hydroxyzine orally only on the operation day. All patients also received 50% nitrous oxide inhalation sedation. The child's behaviour was evaluated every 5 min by using Houpt Sedation Rating Scale. The oxygen saturation and heart rates were also followed. RESULTS: The mean age of the children in the study was 61.9 months (SD 11.9) for group 1 and 53.7 months (SD 12.8) for group 2. Evaluation of the results showed that there were no significant differences (P < 0.05) between behavioural attitudes and sedation degree of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty milligrams of hydroxyzine administered 24 h preoperatively has no significant benefit on sedation of the child.     

A sedation technique for implant and periodontal surgery

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of a sedation technique which involved titrating intravenous midazolam to an 'ideal' sedation end point, followed by a continuous infusion of propofol. This technique might be a satisfactory alternative to general anaesthesia for implant surgery in anxious patients or when procedures exceed 60-min duration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 20 patients were treated on 23 occasions. A 2-mg bolus of midazolam was injected intravenously followed after 90 s by 1 mg increments until the patient was adequately sedated. 30 min after this induction with midazolam, a propofol infusion was started at a rate which varied between 0-300 mg/h (0-30 ml/h). The actual infusion rate was adjusted in order to maintain the optimum sedation level which had been achieved using midazolam. The quality of sedation was assessed using Ellis and Sedation scores. RESULTS: Midazolam dosage varied between 5 and 14 mg. The initial propofol infusion rate was 200 mg/h (20 ml/h) for 21 of the 23 implant surgery treatments. CONCLUSION: The sedation technique described takes advantage of the differing pharmacokinetic properties of midazolam and propofol. Initial sedation was achieved using midazolam, this was then maintained using a variable propofol infusion. The shorter distribution and elimination half-lifes of the latter drug made matching the level of sedation to the patient's needs easier and also provided good short-term recovery.     

Effects of inhalation sedation with nitrous oxide on intraoral senses

ObjectiveThe dental treatment such as local anesthetic injections are a common source of anxiety and fear during dental procedures. One of the causes of these anxiety and fear are regarded as taste and tactile sensory input. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of inhalation sedation with nitrous oxide (IS–N₂O) on intraoral taste and tactile sensory input in human.Materials and methodsWe performed taste testing using electrogustometry and the filter paper disc test in the proglossis region, and precise tactile function testing using the Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments (SWM) test was performed on the mandibular incisor interdental gingival papilla of healthy male and female volunteers.ResultsOn electrogustometry, the 50% IS-N₂O threshold was significantly higher than those of other conditions (vs. room air [RA], 100% O₂, Recovery, vs. 30% IS-N₂O). In the filter paper disc test, the 30%/50% IS-N₂O thresholds were significantly higher than those of other conditions (vs. RA, 100% O₂, Recovery) for all tastes. However, no significant difference in the recognition threshold was noted between 30% IS-N₂O and 50% IS-N₂O. In the SWM test, the 30%/50% IS-N₂O thresholds were significantly higher than those of other conditions (vs. RA, 100% O₂, Recovery), but the 50% IS-N₂O threshold was higher than the 30% IS-N₂O threshold.ConclusionIS-N₂O inhibit the input of taste and tactile sensations and may be an effective tool for patients undergoing dental procedures.     

口服与肌注咪达唑仑镇静治疗儿童牙科焦虑症的临床疗效对比

目的:评估咪达唑仑口服或肌注两种不同给药方法对牙科焦虑症患儿牙科治疗时的镇静效果。方法:将2020年1月~2020年7月于深圳市儿童医院口腔科接受咪达唑仑镇静下牙齿治疗的90例患儿随机分为两组,每组45例。肌注组给予肌注咪达唑仑(0.2 mg/kg),口服组给予口服咪达唑仑(0.6 mg/kg,单次最大剂量20.0 mg)。采用Ramssay量表评估患儿镇静情况,Frankl量表评估患儿治疗依从性,Houpt量表评估患儿治疗完成情况。同时记录药物起效时间、患儿治疗过程中的心率、血氧饱和度、术中及术后不良反应情况等。结果:肌注组起效时间(13.0±2.0)min明显短于口服组(15.6±1.8)min,差异有统计学意义(t=6.489,P<0.05)。两组的Ramssay量表评分中位分值(Z=-1.089,P=0.276),Frankl量表评分中位分值(Z=-0.0863,P=0.388)及Houpt量表评分中位分值(Z=-1.854,P=0.064)差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),评分分布相似。两组患儿的镇静成功率(χ^2=0.178,P>0.05)及治疗成功率(χ^2=3.103,P>0.05)差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(χ^2=0.080,P>0.05)。结论:口服或肌注咪达唑仑镇静效果相似,是治疗牙科焦虑症患儿的安全有效的镇静方法,但肌注组的镇静起效更快。     

An RCT pilot study to test the effects of intravenous midazolam as a conscious sedation technique for anxious children requiring dental treatment--an alternative to general anaesthesia

AIM: To add to the evidence base for acceptable and effective paediatric conscious sedation techniques in dental primary care. OBJECTIVES: To compare three conscious sedation techniques for primary care as an alternative to dental general anaesthesia (DGA) in children. To assess the feasibility and practicality of running the trial in general dental practice. To form the basis for sample size calculations and assess scales of measurement. DESIGN: Single centre, randomised control trial (RCT). SETTING: Queensway Anxiety Management Clinic (QAMC). A primary care based general and referral dental practice for the management of anxious patients. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty five children too anxious for management with relative analgesia, requiring invasive dental procedure for which dental general anaesthesia (DGA) will be required if an alternative cannot be found. INTERVENTIONS: Group 1 (n = 20) - A combination of inhaled medical air and titrated intravenous midazolam. Group 2 (n = 22) - A combination of inhaled 40% nitrous oxide in oxygen and titrated intravenous midazolam. Group 3 (n = 23) - A combination of an inhaled mixture of 0.3% sevoflurane and 40% nitrous oxide in oxygen with titrated intravenous midazolam. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Successful completion of the intended dental treatment with a child who is co-operative and responsive to verbal commands. RESULTS: Fifty per cent (ten children) successfully completed treatment in Group 1, 73% (16 children) in Group 2 and 83% (19 children) in Group 3. This difference was not significant at a 5% level (chi(2) = 5.53, df = 2, P = 0.07) Of the total of 20 failures, eight children in Group 1 and one child in Group 2 were successfully treated with the addition of sevoflurane and nitrous oxide in oxygen. Only two children required referral to a hospital setting for DGA and the remaining nine children were managed with an alternative conscious sedation technique. CONCLUSION: This pilot shows that intravenous midazolam especially in combination with the addition of inhaled nitrous oxide or sevoflurane and nitrous oxide were promising safe and effective techniques, sufficient to justify progression to a definitive RCT with appropriate methods.     

A study of effectiveness of midazolam sedation for prevention of myocardial arrhythmias in endosseous implant placement

Purpose: The study aimed to assess electrocardiographic alterations during oral implant placement surgeries under local anesthesia (lidocaine chlorhydrate with epinephrine), using 15 mg of midazolam as an anxiolytic premedication. Material and methods: The study randomly selected 20 patients, aged 21–50 years old, requiring bilateral mandibular dental implants. Each patient was assessed using placebo on one side and midazolam on the contralateral side, with random, double‐blinded distribution. The electrocardiogram recorded 12 static leads every 2 min, while D2 derivations were recorded continuously. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between the placebo and midazolam when analyzing the morphological behavior of the electrocardiographic wave and the presence of arrhythmias during the experiment. However, under sedation, assessment of the behavior of electrocardiographic parameters during different stages of the procedure revealed statistically significant differences (P<0.05) for heart rate, P‐wave amplitude and duration of the RR and QTc intervals. The arrhythmias detected were considered low risk for patients without systemic alterations and were observed in 53.3% of patients. The most frequently occurring alterations were tachycardia, bradycardia, supraventricular and ventricular extrasystoles and blocked atrial extrasystole, which were similar for both placebo and midazolam, with the greatest incidence during the initial, incision and bone drilling stages. Conclusion: The use of 15 mg of midazolam made no difference compared with the placebo. The use of 15 mg of midazolam did not show an advantage in the incidence of arrhythmias The anxiolytic premedication does not prevent myocardial arrhythmias in endosseous implant placement. The clinical significance of the arrhythmias may not represent serious risks. To cite this article:
Romano MM, Soares MS, Pastore CA, Tornelli MJ, de Oliveira Guaré R, Adde CA. A study of effectiveness of midazolam sedation for prevention of myocardial arrhythmias in endosseous implant placement.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 23 , 2012 489–495.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2011.02171.x     

Intra-nasal midazolam in conscious sedation of young paediatric dental patients

Summary. Objectives . To compare the effects of 3 different doses of intra-nasal midazolam in the conscious sedation of young paediatric dental patients and to compare the effectiveness of the sedation in the fasting and non-fasting child.
Design . Double blind random controlled trial.
Sample and Methods . Thirty-eight uncooperative young children aged 2–5 years (mean age 4·02 years) were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups. The groups and the doses of midazolam administered intra-nasally were A: 0·3 mg/kg, B: 0·4 mg/kg, and C: 0·5 mg/kg body weight. Each child in each group had two visits for restorative treatment: one without food (fasting) and the other with soft drink and light food (non-fasting) before treatment. Child behaviour and sedative effects were evaluated using the scoring system of Houpt. The vital signs were monitored continuously using a pulse oximeter and Dinamap machine.
Results . There was rapid onset of sedation with the maximal effect between 8 and 15 minutes. This sedation lasted for 25–40 minutes in Groups A and B and for 60 minutes in Group C. Conscious sedation and dental treatment were achieved in 79%, 96% and 100% of the children in Groups A, B and C, respectively. Consistently higher Houpt scores were seen in Groups B and C, with statistically significant differences between Groups A and C, and B and C (Tukey's range test, P < 0·05). There were no significant differences in the general behaviour of the child, the onset and the duration of sedation between the fasting and the non-fasting child (nonparametric anova P > 0·05). All the vital signs were within normal physiological limits and there were no significant adverse effects either with or without fasting.
Conclusions . All 3 doses of intranasal midazolam were effective in modifying the behaviour of the uncooperative child patient to accept dental treatment. This was irrespective of fasting.     

Optimising the dose of oral midazolam sedation for dental procedures in children: a prospective, randomised, and controlled study

International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2012; 22: 271–279 Background. Midazolam sedation poses a significant dilemma in paediatric dentistry, which is to find out the optimal dosing with minimal undesirable adverse events. In this study, we aimed to compare the effect of three doses of oral midazolam (0.5, 0.75, and 1 mg/kg) on the sedative state and cooperative behaviour of children during dental treatment. We further compared completion rates, parent satisfaction, and all adverse events. Design. Ninety children aged 3–10 years were randomised to three equal groups. Groups A, B, and C received 0.5, 0.75, and 1 mg/kg of oral midazolam, respectively. Levels of sedation, cooperative behaviour, procedures completion rates, parent satisfaction, and adverse events were prospectively recorded. Results. Sedation scores in B and C were higher (P < 0.001) than in A. Cooperation scores (CS) in B and C were higher (P < 0.001) than in A. Significant increase in completion rates was observed between A and C (P = 0.025). Parent satisfaction was greater in B and C (P < 0.001) compared to A. Adverse events were higher in C (P < 0.05) than in A or B. Conclusion. Amount of 0.75 mg/kg oral midazolam appears to be the optimal oral dose in terms of effectiveness, acceptability, and safety for dental treatments in paediatric patients, when administered by an experienced, paediatric anaesthetist.     

Nasotracheal Fiberoptic Intubation: Patient Comfort,Intubating Conditions and Hemodynamic Stability During Conscious Sedation with Different Doses of Dexmedetomidine

The study aims to evaluate the efficacy of two doses of dexmedetomidine for sedation during awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI). The study was designed in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded manner and carried out in an academic medical university. Forty young co-operative patients aged 15–45 years of either sex belonging to ASA class I-II, planned for elective maxillo-facial surgery formed the study group. All patients received midazolam 0.05 mg/kg, glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg, ondansetron 4 mg, and ranitidine 50 mg IV 15 min before as premedication, oxygen by nasal cannula, and topical local anesthetics to the airway. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the groups; dexmedetomedine 1 μg/kg IV (Group L), or dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg IV (Group H). Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) was assessed. Primary outcome measurements were: HR, MAP, SpO₂ and EtCO₂ and secondary outcome measurements were: intubation scores by vocal cord movement, coughing and limb movement, fiberoptic intubation comfort score, nasotracheal intubation score and airway obstruction score. On the first post-operative day, recall, level of discomfort during fiberoptic intubation, adverse events and satisfaction score were also assessed. There were no significant hemodynamic differences between the two groups. OAA/S was significantly better with dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg (p < 0.05) and patients were significantly calmer, more cooperative and satisfied during awake fiberoptic intubation with dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg with fewer transient adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg proved to be more effective for sedation for awake fiberoptic intubation.     

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.     

Combined oral midazolam–ketamine better than midazolam alone for sedation of young children: a randomized controlled trial

International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2013; 23: 207–215 Background. There is a lack of clinical trials on paediatric dental sedation. Aim. We investigated whether young children’s behaviour improves during dental treatment with oral ketamine/midazolam compared with midazolam alone or no sedation. Design. Healthy children under 36 months of age, presenting early childhood caries were randomly assigned to receive protective stabilization plus: combined oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and ketamine (3 mg/kg) (MK), or oral midazolam (1.0 mg/kg) (MS), or no sedative (PS). One observer scored children’s behaviour using the Ohio State University Behavior Rating Scale (OSUBRS) at determined points in a dental exam (no sedative) and treatment session. Data were analysed using nonparametric bivariate tests. Results. Forty‐one children were included. In the dental exam session, the sum of OSUBRS scores was similar for the three groups (P = 0.81). In the treatment session, the MK produced more cooperative behaviour than MS and PS (P = 0.01), longer sessions (P = 0.04), and a pattern of homogeneous OSUBRS scores from the reception area (before sedative administration) to the end of the session (P = 0.06). No immediate and post‐discharge side effects were observed in groups MK and MS. Conclusions. The combination of oral midazolam and ketamine is efficacious for guiding the behaviour of children under 3 years old.     

笑气镇静系统与咪达唑仑口服镇静在智障儿童患者牙科治疗中的应用

目的:探讨笑气镇静系统与咪达唑仑口服镇静在智障儿童患者牙科治疗中的临床效果。方法:选取67例对口腔诊疗不配合的智障儿童患者,在门诊环境下实施笑气镇静（笑气浓度为35%~50%）和咪达唑仑口服镇静辅助诊疗（给药剂量为0.50~0.75 mg/kg）,记录各项评价指标,并对治疗效果和安全性进行比较。应用SPSSl3.0软件对2组的治疗成功率、不良反应发生率等行χ²检验。结果:2组治疗总成功率为70% ( 47/67) , 笑气镇静组的成功率为67%（26/39）,咪达唑仑口服镇静组的成功率为75%（21/28）。总不良反应发生率为13%(9/67) ,笑气镇静组不良反应发生率为5%(2/39),显著低于咪达唑仑口服镇静组(7/28,25%,P<0.05)。结论:笑气镇静系统与咪达唑仑口服镇静在智障儿童患者牙科治疗中均有较好的临床效果。笑气镇静系统的成功率稍低于咪达唑仑口服镇静者,但其不良反应明显少于后者。     

Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) sedation for third molar extraction: a comparison to nitrous oxide sedation

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox^®) in the reduction of dental anxiety in patients undergoing mandibular third molar removal in a specialist surgical suite and compare it to the conventional nitrous oxide sedation. Methods: A prospective randomized, non‐blinded crossover design study of 20 patients receiving two types of sedation for their third molar extraction who participated in 40 treatment sessions. At first appointment, a patient was randomly assigned to receive either nitrous oxide sedation or intermittent Penthrox^® inhaler sedation, with the alternate regimen administered during the second appointment. Peri‐procedural vital signs (heart rate and blood pressure) were recorded and any deviations from 20% from the baseline values, as well as any drop in oxygen saturation below 92% were documented. The Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score was recorded every five minutes. Patient cooperation during the procedure, patients’ general opinion about the sedation technique, surgeon satisfaction and the occurrence of side effects were all recorded. After the second procedure, the patient was also asked if he or she had any preference of one sedation technique over the other. Results: Levels of sedation were comparable in nitrous oxide and Penthrox^® sedation sessions. However, at 15 minutes of sedation it was significantly lighter (p < 0.05) in Penthrox^®. No patient in both regimens reached a RSS deeper than a score of 4. Parameters measured for assessment of sedation (patient cooperation, surgeon satisfaction and patient general opinion about sedation technique) were all similarly comparable for both nitrous oxide and Penthrox^®. In both sedation sessions, the odour of the inhalational agent was accepted by the patients; half of the patients (10 patients) who received methoxyflurane thought its odour was pleasant. Patients preferred methoxyflurane (Penthrox^®) inhalation over nitrous oxide sedation (Fisher’s Exact test, p < 0.05). Adverse events were minimal. No patient was either deeply sedated or agitated. Blood pressure was within ± 20% from the baseline values. No patient had oxygen saturation less than 92%. Dizziness was the most frequently encountered side effect in both regimens (four patients each). Two patients had bradycardia (HR < 60 beats/minute) when nitrous oxide was used in comparison to one patient with Penthrox^® sedation. Paraesthesia of fingers and heaviness of the chest was encountered only with nitrous oxide sedation (four patients). Mild self‐limited shivering occurred in one patient with Penthrox^® sedation. Conclusions: The Penthrox^® Inhaler can produce a comparable sedation to that of nitrous oxide for the surgical extraction of third molars under local anaesthesia.     

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.