A study of the effectiveness of oral midazolam sedation for orthodontic extraction of permanent teeth in children: a prospective, randomised, controlled, crossover trial
- PMID: 12014695
- DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801400
A study of the effectiveness of oral midazolam sedation for orthodontic extraction of permanent teeth in children: a prospective, randomised, controlled, crossover trial
Abstract
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.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of oral midazolam with combination of oral midazolam and nitrous oxide inhalation in relation to safety of dental sedation in young children.Odontostomatol Trop. 2011 Sep;34(135):33-41. Odontostomatol Trop. 2011. PMID: 25090744 Clinical Trial.
-
A comparison of the sedative effect of oral versus nasal midazolam combined with nitrous oxide in uncooperative children.Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2015 Oct;16(5):417-24. doi: 10.1007/s40368-015-0187-7. Epub 2015 May 5. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2015. PMID: 25939638 Clinical Trial.
-
A randomised, controlled, crossover trial of oral midazolam and nitrous oxide for paediatric dental sedation.Anaesthesia. 2002 Sep;57(9):860-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2002.02784.x. Anaesthesia. 2002. PMID: 12190750 Clinical Trial.
-
Conscious sedation in paediatric dentistry: current philosophies and techniques.Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg. 2000 Oct;15:206-10. Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg. 2000. PMID: 11709940 Review.
-
Best clinical practice guidance for conscious sedation of children undergoing dental treatment: an EAPD policy document.Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2021 Dec;22(6):989-1002. doi: 10.1007/s40368-021-00660-z. Epub 2021 Aug 28. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2021. PMID: 34453697 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Effectiveness of oral midazolam for paediatric dental care: a retrospective study in two specialist centres.Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006 Dec;7(4):228-35. doi: 10.1007/BF03262557. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006. PMID: 17164067 Clinical Trial.
-
Safety and Efficacy of Different Sedation Protocols in Managing Dental Anxiety in Adult Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025 May;17(Suppl 1):S442-S444. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1450_24. Epub 2025 Feb 25. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025. PMID: 40511029 Free PMC article.
-
Midazolam use in pediatric dentistry: a review.J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Feb;20(1):1-8. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2020.20.1.1. Epub 2020 Feb 28. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2020. Retraction in: J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Apr;20(2):105. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2020.20.2.105. PMID: 32158954 Free PMC article. Retracted. Review.
-
Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients.Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013 Mar;10(2):173-9. doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.113335. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013. PMID: 23946732 Free PMC article.
-
Comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety of nitrous oxide and midazolam for conscious sedation in pediatric dental patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2025 Jun;25(3):161-182. doi: 10.17245/jdapm.2025.25.3.161. Epub 2025 May 30. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2025. PMID: 40521429 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources