Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Compared to a Combination of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine with Ketamine for Sedation of Children Requiring Dental Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The effect of dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus dexmedetomidine on behavior of uncooperative pediatric dental patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Uncooperative behavior in pediatric dentistry is one of the most common manifestations of dental anxiety. Managing anxious patients can be attained by moderate sedation. This study aimed to compare the effect of sedation by dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination (DEX-KET) versus dexmedetomidine (DEX) on behavior of uncooperative pediatric dental patients.

METHODOLOGY

In total, 56 uncooperative healthy children (3-5 years old) requiring dental treatment were divided randomly into two groups: Group I (study group), which received buccal dexmedetomidine (2 μg/kg) and ketamine (2 mg/kg), and Group II (control group), which received only buccal dexmedetomidine (4 μg/kg). Drugs effects were assessed in terms of hemodynamic parameters, patient's drug acceptance, child behavior, postoperative effect of sedation, amnesic effect, incidence of adverse events, as well as procedural induced stress measured by salivary secretory immunoglobulin A (s-IgA).

RESULTS

Hemodynamic results did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the two study groups (P>0.05). There was a significant difference in patient's acceptance to sedative drug between both groups, favoring DEX (p=0.005). Children who received DEX-KET showed significantly better behavior than those who received DEX for local anesthesia (p=0.017) and during operative procedure (p=0.037). Adverse events, post-operative and amnesic effects of drugs were comparable in both groups (p>0.05). Moreover, the mean difference in the salivary s-IgA levels between initial and final value was not statistically significant between both groups (p=0.556).

CONCLUSION

Both DEX-KET combination and DEX alone are effective in providing hemodynamic stability. DEX-KET combination significantly improved the behavior of sedated children compared to DEX alone but the drug acceptance was decreased in the DEX-KET group. Both regimens did not have a negative effect on postoperative behavior of children and had comparable amnesic effect with no significant adverse events. Salivary s-IgA is not considered a potential stress biomarker in sedated children.

Effectiveness of buccal administration of dexmedetomidine and ketamine combination in paediatric dental sedation: A randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Pain and anxiety can be considerable obstacles while treating paediatric dental patients. Moderate sedation is needed to treat uncooperative patients.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of buccal administration of dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus dexmedetomidine.

DESIGN

Fifty-six uncooperative children were randomly assigned into two groups: Group I received buccal dexmedetomidine (2 μg/kg) and ketamine (2 mg/kg) (DEX-KET), whereas Group II received buccal dexmedetomidine (4 μg/kg) (DEX). The effects of drugs were evaluated based on changes in vital signs, onset and duration of sedation, sedation level, analgesia, ease of treatment and procedural adverse effects.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in vital signs or sedation onset between the two groups. DEX-KET group showed shorter recovery time than DEX group (p < .0001). There were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding sedation level at optimum sedation and during operative procedure (p = .064, p = .069 respectively). The ease of treatment was significantly better in DEX-KET group than in DEX group (p = .048). Procedural side effects and analgesic effects of the sedative drugs were comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSION

The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine delivered buccally provided a better method of delivering care to uncooperative children with more rapid recovery than dexmedetomidine.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine and a dexmedetomidine-esketamine combination for reducing dental anxiety in preschool children undergoing dental treatment under general anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Dental anxiety is a widespread complication occurring in pediatric patients during dental visits and may lead to undesirable complications. Esketamine may be effective in anxiety.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of premedication with a dexmedetomidine-esketamine combination compared with dexmedetomidine alone on dental anxiety in preschool children undergoing dental treatment under general anesthesia.

METHODS

This is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. A total of 84 patients were scheduled for elective outpatient dental caries treatment under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly premedicated with intranasal dexmedetomidine (group D) or intranasal dexmedetomidine-esketamine (group DS). The primary outcome was the level of dental anxiety assessed by the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale (MCDAS) at 2 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included level of dental anxiety at 1 day and 7 days after surgery, the incidence of dental anxiety at 2 h, 1 day, and 7 days after surgery, sedation onset time, overall success of sedation, acceptance of mask induction, postoperative pain intensity, incidence of emergence agitation in PACU, adverse reactions, HR, and SpO2 before premedication (baseline) and at 10, 20, and 30 min after the end of study drug delivery.

RESULTS

The dental anxiety in group DS was lower than that in group D at 2 h, 1 day, and 7 days postoperatively (P = 0.04, 0.004, and 0.006, respectively). The incidences of dental anxiety in group DS were lower than those in group D at 2 h (53 % vs 76 %, P = 0.03), 1 day (47 % vs 71 %, P = 0.04), and 7 days (44 % vs 71 %, P = 0.02) after surgery. Group DS had a higher success rate of sedation (P = 0.03) but showed a lower MAS score (P = 0.005) and smoother hemodynamics (P < 0.01) after drug administration than group D. Group DS showed a significantly lower incidence rate of emergence agitation (P = 0.03) and postoperative pain intensity (P = 0.006) than that in group D during the anesthesia recovery time. The occurrence of adverse reactions was similar in both groups (P > 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

We did not analyze and correct for the learning effect caused by repeated applications of the MCDAS and MCDAS scores on the 1 day after surgery were obtained by telephone follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to premedication with dexmedetomidine alone, premedication with intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with esketamine could significantly improve dental anxiety in preschool children undergoing dental treatment under general anesthesia.

Nociception associated with pain/distress in young children sedated for dental treatment: a clinical study with objective and subjective measures

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association between children's pain/distress levels and patient characteristics (age, sex, history of dental pain), sedation type (level of sedation, sedative regimen), nociception and pain intensity reported by the parents in sedated children undergoing minimally invasive dental treatment.

METHODS

This clinical study evaluated secondary outcomes of an RCT that evaluated the efficacy of dexmedetomidine sedation with or without ketamine. Only children who had nociception levels recorded using the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) were included (0-100; 0 = highest nociception). FLACC scale (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability) was used to assess children's pain/distress (0-10; 0 = no pain/distress). Parental proxy report of the child's pain intensity during the treatment was performed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 0-100; 0 = no pain). The association between ANI, children's age and sex, dental pain history, sedation level, sedative regimen, and VAS with the FLACC was verified using the generalised estimation equation analysis (alpha 0.05).

RESULTS

Participants were 31 children (51.6% boys) and their parents (90.3% mothers). Median FLACC was 3.3 (25th-75th percentiles 1.7-8.2), ANI 80.9 (74.7-85.8), and VAS 10 (1-23). FLACC associated with ANI (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.93-0.99; p = 0.02), moderate sedation (0.13; 0.03-0.50; p = 0.003), and VAS (1.05; 1.01-1.10; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Pain/distress was generally low and more prominent with minimal (versus moderate) sedation and higher nociception.

The Emerging Role of Virtual Reality as an Adjunct to Procedural Sedation and Anesthesia: A Narrative Review

Over the past 20 years, there has been a significant reduction in the incidence of adverse events associated with sedation outside of the operating room. Non-pharmacologic techniques are increasingly being used as peri-operative adjuncts to facilitate and promote anxiolysis, analgesia and sedation, and to reduce adverse events. This narrative review will briefly explore the emerging role of immersive reality in the peri-procedural care of surgical patients. Immersive virtual reality (VR) is intended to distract patients with the illusion of "being present" inside the computer-generated world, drawing attention away from their anxiety, pain, and discomfort. VR has been described for a variety of procedures that include colonoscopies, venipuncture, dental procedures, and burn wound care. As VR technology develops and the production costs decrease, the role and application of VR in clinical practice will expand. It is important for medical professionals to understand that VR is now available for prime-time use and to be aware of the growing body in the literature that supports VR.

The Sedative Effects of Inhaled Nebulized Dexmedetomidine on Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Children that need surgery and medical examinations are often uncooperative, and preoperative sedation is necessary. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine in children for sedation that underwent medical examinations or surgery.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane library, for randomized controlled trials of Intranasal dexmedetomidine using a spray or a mucosal atomization device in children undergoing examination or elective surgery. We included all studies that analyzed the sedation efficiency of intranasal dexmedetomidine in children.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 1,233pediatric patients were included. Compared to other sedation treatments, inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine showed similar sedation satisfaction [risk ratio RR: 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87-1.18; P = 0.83; I² = 72%]. there was also no statistical difference in the success rate of separation from parents (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.82-1.12; P = 0.58; I² = 67%), and mask acceptability (RR: 1; 95% CI: 0.83-1.20; P = 0.99; I² = 35%). But it is worth mentioning that nebulized dexmedetomidine combined with ketamine provided better sedation satisfaction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49-0.96; I² = 49%) and more satisfactory separation from parents (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74-0.97; I² = 0%). Moreover, nebulized dexmedetomidine reduced the occurrences of nausea and vomiting (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.15-0.51; P < 0.01; I² = 10%) and emergence agitation (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18-0.49; P < 0.01; I² = 0%). There are no hypotension or arrhythmia reported that required intervention in all articles.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other premedication treatments, inhaled nebulized dexmedetomidine provided equivalent sedation satisfaction for the examination or preoperative sedation of children, but it reduced the occurrences of emergence agitation and postoperative nausea and vomiting.