Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Nasal versus oral midazolam sedation for pediatric dental patients.
J Dent Child (Chic). 2004 May-Aug; 71(2):126-30.JD

Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare intranasal (IN) and oral (PO) midazolam for effect on behavior, time of onset, maximum working time, efficacy, and safety for patients requiring dental care.

METHODS

Forty anxious subjects (20 IN, 20 PO, Frankl Scale 3 and 4, ages 2-6 years, ASA I and II) were sedated randomly with either IN (0.3 mg/kg) or PO (0.7 mg/kg) midazolam. The dental procedure under sedation was videotaped and rated by a blinded and calibrated evaluator using Houpt's behavior rating scale.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference for overall behavior (F3,27 = 0.407; P = .749). The planned contrasts showed significant interactions between time and route (IN vs PO) between 25 and 30 minutes after starting sedation. The time of onset (P = .000) and the working time (P = .007) were significantly different between IN and PO midazolam. There were no statistically significant differences in vital signs (O2 sat, HR, RR, BP) between PO and IN (P = .595). IN subjects showed more movement and less sleep toward the end of the dental procedures, and faster onset time but shorter working time than PO. Vital signs were stable throughout the procedures with no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Mean onset time was approximately 3 times faster with IN administration compared to PO administration. Mean working time was approximately 10 minutes longer with PO administration than it was with IN administration. Overall behavior under PO and IN was similar. However, more movement and less sleep were shown in subjects under IN than those under PO toward the end of the dental session. All vital signs were stable throughout the procedures and showed no significant differences between PO and IN administration.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Ill, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15587094

Citation

Lee-Kim, Su Jun, et al. "Nasal Versus Oral Midazolam Sedation for Pediatric Dental Patients." Journal of Dentistry for Children (Chicago, Ill.), vol. 71, no. 2, 2004, pp. 126-30.
Lee-Kim SJ, Fadavi S, Punwani I, et al. Nasal versus oral midazolam sedation for pediatric dental patients. J Dent Child (Chic). 2004;71(2):126-30.
Lee-Kim, S. J., Fadavi, S., Punwani, I., & Koerber, A. (2004). Nasal versus oral midazolam sedation for pediatric dental patients. Journal of Dentistry for Children (Chicago, Ill.), 71(2), 126-30.
Lee-Kim SJ, et al. Nasal Versus Oral Midazolam Sedation for Pediatric Dental Patients. J Dent Child (Chic). 2004 May-Aug;71(2):126-30. PubMed PMID: 15587094.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Nasal versus oral midazolam sedation for pediatric dental patients. AU - Lee-Kim,Su Jun, AU - Fadavi,Shahrbanoo, AU - Punwani,Indru, AU - Koerber,Anne, PY - 2004/12/14/pubmed PY - 2005/2/11/medline PY - 2004/12/14/entrez SP - 126 EP - 30 JF - Journal of dentistry for children (Chicago, Ill.) JO - J Dent Child (Chic) VL - 71 IS - 2 N2 - PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare intranasal (IN) and oral (PO) midazolam for effect on behavior, time of onset, maximum working time, efficacy, and safety for patients requiring dental care. METHODS: Forty anxious subjects (20 IN, 20 PO, Frankl Scale 3 and 4, ages 2-6 years, ASA I and II) were sedated randomly with either IN (0.3 mg/kg) or PO (0.7 mg/kg) midazolam. The dental procedure under sedation was videotaped and rated by a blinded and calibrated evaluator using Houpt's behavior rating scale. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference for overall behavior (F3,27 = 0.407; P = .749). The planned contrasts showed significant interactions between time and route (IN vs PO) between 25 and 30 minutes after starting sedation. The time of onset (P = .000) and the working time (P = .007) were significantly different between IN and PO midazolam. There were no statistically significant differences in vital signs (O2 sat, HR, RR, BP) between PO and IN (P = .595). IN subjects showed more movement and less sleep toward the end of the dental procedures, and faster onset time but shorter working time than PO. Vital signs were stable throughout the procedures with no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Mean onset time was approximately 3 times faster with IN administration compared to PO administration. Mean working time was approximately 10 minutes longer with PO administration than it was with IN administration. Overall behavior under PO and IN was similar. However, more movement and less sleep were shown in subjects under IN than those under PO toward the end of the dental session. All vital signs were stable throughout the procedures and showed no significant differences between PO and IN administration. SN - 1551-8949 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15587094/Nasal_versus_oral_midazolam_sedation_for_pediatric_dental_patients_ L2 - https://www.ingentaconnect.com/openurl?genre=article&issn=1551-8949&volume=71&issue=2&spage=126&aulast=Lee-Kim DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -