Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Mar;10(2):173-9.
doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.113335.

Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients

Lida Toomarian  1 , Katayoun Salem, Ghassem Ansari
Affiliations

Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients

Lida Toomarian et al. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013 Mar.

Abstract

Background: THE GOAL OF THIS INVESTIGATION WAS TO COMPARE THE BEHAVIORAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF THREE SEDATIVE DRUG REGIMENS: oral meperidine (OM), submucosal meperidine (SM) and oral midazolam (M) in healthy pediatric patients.

Materials and methods: This study sample consisted of thirty children aged 24-72 months (mean = 41.1) exhibiting definitely negative behavior. Three sedative regimens including: Oral meperidine/hydroxyzine, oral midazolam/hydroxyzine and submucosal meperidine/oral hydroxyzine were administered randomly during three consecutive appointments with a crossover design. Houpt behavioral scale was employed for evaluating the sedation effect of each regimen by a calibrated independent Pediatric dentist. Physiologic parameters were also recorded including blood oxygen saturation and pulse rate. Data was analyzed using Wilcoxon-signed ranked test, Mc-Nemar, GEE Logistic regression, Friedman, Fisher exact and Cochran tests for significance.

Results: Overall success rates were 50%, 46.7% and 26.7% for submucosal meperidine, oral meperidine and oral midazolam, respectively (P = 0.03). The probability of achieving a success in behavior control was more in 48-72 month olds. Child's age and drug type were the two main predictors of altered behavior. Evaluating the differences between the effects of three tested regimens on recorded physiological parameters showed no significant differences.

Conclusion: All three regimens were proved safe within the limits of the current study. Meperidine sedation in both routes was considered to be more effective. Although there was less sleep and more head/oral resistance in midazolam group, the difference between groups was not significant.

Keywords: Dental anxiety; meperidine; midazolam; oral; pediatric sedation; submucosal.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared

References

    1. Gustafsson A, Broberg A, Bodin L, Berggren U, Arnrup K. Dental behaviour management problems: The role of child personal characteristics. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2010;20:242–53. - PubMed
    1. Yasny JS, Asgari A. Considerations for the use of enteral sedation in pediatric dentistry. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008;32:85–93. - PubMed
    1. Campbell RL, Ross GA, Campbelt JR, Mourin AP. Comparison of oral choral hydrate with intramuscular ketamine, meperidine, and promethazine for pediatric sedation preliminary report. Anesth Prog. 1998;45:46–50. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Song YU, Webb MD. Comparison of the effect of orally versus submucosally administered meperidine on the behavior of pediatric dental patients: A retrospective study. Anesth Prog. 2003;50:129–33. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cathers JW, Wilson CF, Webb MD, Alvarez ME, Schiffman T, Taylor S. A comparison of two meperidine/hydroxyzine sedation regimens for the uncooperative pediatric patient. Pediatr Dent. 2005;27:395–400. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources