What is the evidence for paediatric dental sedation?

Safety and Efficacy of 3 Pediatric Midazolam Moderate Sedation Regimens

Our aim was to characterize effectiveness and complications in children receiving oral midazolam alone, nasal midazolam alone, or oral midazolam with other sedatives. Children received oral midazolam alone, nasal midazolam, or oral midazolam in combination with other sedative medications. All subjects received a presedation history and physical examination and were sedated per protocol by any of 28 resident providers under attending supervision. Sedations were rated for success and complications by clinicians. Postoperative complications were assessed by trained staff up to 48 hours postoperatively. Seven hundred and one encounters, completed over 24 months, yielded 650 usable sedations. The majority of children were healthy (469; 68.2%) and 86% (532) weighed between 10 and 25 kg. Sedations were deemed successful in about 80% of cases. Planned treatment was completed in over 85% of encounters. Oral midazolam alone yielded the best behavior. Physical assessment factors of behavior and age were correlated (P = .035) with effectiveness. Hiccups and a positive medical history were significantly related (P = .049). Side effects of either nausea/vomiting, dysphoria, or hiccups occurred in less than 10% of cases. All 3 regimens were effective with minimal postoperative complications.

Evidence of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of dental fear in paediatric dentistry: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Several techniques have been proposed to manage dental fear/dental anxiety (DFA) in children and adolescents undergoing dental procedures. To our knowledge, no widely available compendium of therapies to manage DFA exists. We propose a study protocol to assess the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to relieve dental anxiety in children and adolescents.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In our systematic review, we will include randomised trials, controlled clinical rials and systematic reviews (SRs) of trials that investigated the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to decrease dental anxiety in children and adolescents. We will search the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects=, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Web of Science for relevant studies. Pairs of review authors will independently review titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the specific literature search and extract data using a standardised data extraction form. For each study, information will be extracted on the study report (eg, author, year of publication), the study design (eg, the methodology and, for SRs, the types and number of studies included), the population characteristics, the intervention(s), the outcome measures and the results. The quality of SRs will be assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Reviews instrument, while the quality of the retrieved trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions criteria.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval from an ethics committee is not required, as no participants will be included. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Psychometric properties of the faces version of the Malay-modified child dental anxiety scale

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the psychometric properties of the faces version of the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale (MCDASf) Malay version in 5-6 and 9-12 year-old children.

METHODS

The MCDASf was cross culturally adapted from English into Malay. The Malay version was tested for reliability and validity in 3 studies. In the Study 1, to determine test-retest reliability of MCDASf scale, 166 preschool children aged 5-6 years were asked to rank orders five cartoons faces depicting emotions from 'very happy' to 'very sad' faces on two separate occasions 3 weeks apart. A total of 87 other 5-6 year-old children completed the Malay-MCDASf on two separate occasions 3 weeks apart to determine test-retest reliability for Study 2. In study 3, 239 schoolchildren aged 9-12 years completed the Malay-MCDASf and the Malay-Dental Subscale of the Children Fear Survey Schedule (CFSS-DS) at the same sitting to determine the criterion and construct validity.

RESULTS

In study 1, Kendall W test showed a high degree of concordance in ranking the cartoon faces picture cards on each of the 2 occasions (time 1, W = 0.955 and time 2, W = 0.954). The Malay-MCDASf demonstrated moderate test-retest reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.63, p <0.001) and acceptable internal consistency for all the 6 items (Cronbach's alpha = 0.77) and 8 items (Cronbach's alpha = 0.73). The highest MCDASf scores were observed for the items 'injection in the gum' and 'tooth taken out' for both age groups. The MCDASf significantly correlated with the CFSS-DS (Pearson r = 0.67, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These psychometric findings support for the inclusion of a cartoon faces rating scale to assess child dental anxiety and the Malay-MCDASf is a reliable and valid measure of dental anxiety in 5-12 year-old children.

An evaluation of intranasal sufentanil and dexmedetomidine for pediatric dental sedation

Conscious or moderate sedation is routinely used to facilitate the dental care of the pre- or un-cooperative child. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has little respiratory depressant effect, possibly making it a safer option when used as an adjunct to either opioids or benzodiazepines. Unlike intranasal (IN) midazolam, IN application of DEX and sufentanil (SUF) does not appear to cause much discomfort. Further, although DEX lacks respiratory depressive effects, it is an α2-agonist that can cause hypotension and bradycardia when given in high doses or during prolonged periods of administration. The aim of this feasibility study was to prospectively assess IN DEX/SUF as a potential sedation regimen for pediatric dental procedures. After IRB approval and informed consent, children (aged 3-7 years; n = 20) from our dental clinic were recruited. All patients received 2 μg/kg (max 40 μg) of IN DEX 45 min before the procedure, followed 30 min later by 1 μg/kg (max 20 μg) of IN SUF. An independent observer rated the effects of sedation using the Ohio State University Behavior Rating Scale (OSUBRS) and University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS). The dentist and the parent also assessed the efficacy of sedation. Dental procedures were well tolerated and none were aborted. The mean OSUBRS procedure score was 2.1, the UMSS procedure score was 1.6, and all scores returned to baseline after the procedure. The average dentist rated quality of sedation was 7.6 across the 20 subjects. After discharge, parents reported one child with prolonged drowsiness and one child who vomited at home. The use of IN DEX supplemented with IN SUF provided both an effective and tolerable form of moderate sedation. Although onset and recovery are slower than with oral (PO) midazolam and transmucosal fentanyl, the quality of the sedation may be better with less risk of respiratory depression. Results from this preliminary study showed no major complications from IN delivery of these agents.

Paediatric MRI under sedation: is it necessary? What is the evidence for the alternatives?

To achieve diagnostic images during MRI examinations, small children need to lie still to avoid movement artefact. To reduce patient motion, obviate the need for voluntary immobilisation or breath-holding and therefore obtain high-quality images, MRI of infants is frequently carried out under sedation or general anaesthesia, but this is not without risk and expense. However, many other techniques are available for preparing children for MRI, which have not been fully evaluated. Here, we evaluate the advantages and disadvantage of sedation and anaesthesia for MRI. We then evaluate the alternatives, which include neonatal comforting techniques, sleep manipulation, and appropriate adaptation of the physical environment. We summarize the evidence for their use according to an established hierarchy. Lastly, we discuss several factors that will influence the choice of imaging preparation, including patient factors, imaging factors and service provision. The choice of approach to paediatric MRI is multi-factorial, with limited scientific evidence for many of the current approaches. These considerations may enable others to image children using MRI under different circumstances.