| Journal: |
Research and Opinion in Anesthesia & Intensive Care
Research and Opinion in Anesthesia & Intensive Care
|
Volume: |
|
| Abstract: |
Background
Pediatric dental sedation aims to have a cooperative child who is required to keep
his mouth open during the procedure. Achieving the proper level of sedation might
subject the child to circulatory and ventilatory troubles, which draws the attention
toward performing researches for the proper sedative to be used in such
circumstances.
Aim
of the work This study compares the effect of two sedatives (dexmedetomidine vs.
midazolam) in children undergoing dental procedures.
Patients and methods
A total of 60 ASA I children aged 6–10 years who were scheduled for lower jaw
dental procedure were enrolled in the current study. Children were randomized into
two equal groups. In group D (dexmedetomidine group, n=30), 2-μg/kg
dexmedetomidine was administered intravenously over 5 min as induction dose,
followed by continuous infusion of 0.4 μg/kg/h as a maintenance. In group M
(midazolam group, n=30), 0.05 mg/kg midazolam was administered
intravenously followed by maintenance dose of 0.06–0.12 mg/kg/h titrated
according to patient response. Local infiltration anesthesia was given by the
dentist as 0.5 mg/kg mepivacaine 2%.
Results
In this study, mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen
saturation showed no significant differences between both groups. The time of
onset of sedation was comparable between both groups (4.7±1.1 vs. 4.1±1.8 min in
group D and group M, respectively). However, recovery time was highly significantly
shorter in group D compared with group M (14.3±1.1 vs. 20.2±9.8 min,
respectively). The duration of the procedures (24.7±3.1 vs. 22.2±7.5 min in
group D and group M, respectively) and discharge times (14.1±2.2 vs. 13.5
±5.9 min in group D and group M, respectively) were comparable between both
groups. Number of patients requiring supplemental analgesia was significantly
lower in group D compared with group M (6 vs. 16, respectively). Dentist satisfaction
was equivalent in both groups of the study.
Conclusion
Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are safe and effective for consciously sedating
pediatric patients undergoing dental procedures. Dexmedetomidine shows faster
recovery and better postoperative analgesia compared with midazolam.
Keywords:
conscious sedation, dexmedetomidine, midazolam, pediatric dentistr
|
|
|