Comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine and midazolam-ketamine combination as sedative agents in pediatric dentistry: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of dexmedetomidine to midazolam as premedication and a sedative agent in pediatric patients undergoing dental procedures

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric dental surgeries are associated with the emotions of fear, anxiety, and other behavioral disturbances of children that need to be managed. Sedation using drugs like dexmedetomidine (DEX) and midazolam (MID) is a common pharmacological behavior managing technique. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of both these drugs in current literature.

METHODOLOGY

A thorough literature search was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane's database for randomized studies that compared sedative efficacy of dexmedetomidine with midazolam in children of 0-15 years of age undergoing dental surgeries. Sedation in children during dental procedure, when used as a premedication, at the time of separation from parents and at the time of mask induction, onset time, duration of anesthesia, and surgery were evaluated. The mean differences (MDs), odds ratio (OR), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated both for continuous and dichotomous outcome data using random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven studies met out inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Results of premedication with DEX was associated with more anxiolysis (OR=0.29, 95% CI: 0.17-0.52, p=0.0001; I2=0%) and at the time of separation from parents (OR=0.36, 95% CI: 0.19-0.69, p=0.002; I2=52%) in comparison to MID. No significant differences in results were seen at mask induction (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.34-1.18, p=0.15; I2=47%) and for sedation in children during dental procedures (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.07-3.70, p=0.51; I2=72%). Also, there were no significant differences in onset time, duration of anesthesia, and surgery between the two agents.

CONCLUSION

DEX proved to be a better premedicant than MID for pediatric patients. No significant difference in efficacy of both sedative agents was observed in children undergoing dental treatment. More clinical trials need to be conducted to see its efficacy in dental surgeries in children of standardized ages and with standard doses.

Comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine-midazolam, dexmedetomidine-ketamine, and midazolam-ketamine for premedication in paediatric patients: a double-blinded randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Paediatric patients are a population with a high level of anxiety. The prevention of perioperative stress in a frightened child is important to render the child calm and cooperative for smoother induction. Intranasal premedication is easy and safe, and the drug is rapidly absorbed into the systemic circulation, ensuring early onset of sedation in children and good effectiveness.

METHODS

150 patients in the age group 2-4 years, ASA class I, undergoing elective surgical procedures were enrolled. The patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: a DM group (receiving intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 µg kg -1 and midazolam 0.12 mg kg -1 ), a DK group (receiving intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 µg kg -1 and keta-mine 2 mg kg -1 ), and an MK group (receiving intranasal midazolam 0.12 mg kg -1 and ketamine 2 mg kg -1 ). After 30 minutes of administration of the drugs, the patients were assessed for parent separation anxiety, sedation, ease of IV cannulation, and mask acceptance.

RESULTS

The comparison among the 3 groups showed a statistically significant difference for ease of IV cannulation and mask acceptance at 30 minutes, with a P -value of 0.010 with CI of 0.0-0.02, and P -value 0.007 with CI 0.0-0.02, respectively. The parent separation anxiety and sedation score at 30 minutes was statistically insignificant with a P -value of 0.82 with CI of 0.03-0.14 and P -value 0.631 with CI of 0.38-0.58, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of midazolam and ketamine had a better clinical profile for premedication as compared to other combination drugs used in our study in terms of IV cannulation and acceptance of masks with a comparable decrease in separation anxiety from parents and adequate sedation.

Comparison of two Intranasal Sedatives, Midazolam versus Dexmedetomidine, in Children with High Dental Fear: a Randomized Clinical Trial

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Pharmacologic management of uncooperative behavior is a growing trend in dentistry. Determining the most appropriate drug, route of administration, and proper candidate for sedation have been the goal of several investigations.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the sedative effect of intranasal (IN) sedation of midazolam (MDZ) in compare to dexmedetomidine (DEX) while taking into consideration the effect of dental fear, and psychological status on sedation success.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This double-blind randomized clinical trial included 92 uncooperative dental patients aged 4-6. Study participants were randomly assigned to receive either 0.2mg/kg IN MDZ or 1µg/kg DEX. Sedation was evaluated using the Houpt sedation rating scale. Vital signs were recorded before and during sedation. Prior to sedation, the level of dental fear was determined through children's fear survey schedule-dental subscale (CFSS-DS). Psychological characteristics were screened using the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). Data were analyzed using T-test, Mann-Whitney, Chi-square, and repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

Overall ratings of sedation and subscales of sleep, crying, and movement were comparable between groups (p> 0.05); however, more acceptable behavior (overall scores (4+5+6) was observed in MDZ group compared to DEX group (64% vs. 47.7%) (p= 0.007). All participants were found to have abnormal levels of dental fear (CFSS-DS≥38). However, according to SDQ, the study participants have mainly shown normal behavioral status. A significant association was found between dental fear and sedation success (MDZ, p= 0.001, DEX, p= 0.03), while similar findings were not observed for psychological characteristics (MDZ, p= 0.09 and p= 0.41; DEX, p= 0.71 and p= 0.53). Physiological parameters remained within normal limits in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Sedation with IN MDZ resulted in overall behaviors, which were more satisfactory in highly fearful pediatric dental patients. Despite baseline uncooperative behaviors, the psychological status of study participants were close to average and were not associated with sedation failure.

A digital intervention using virtual reality helmets to reduce dental anxiety of children under local anesthesia and primary teeth extraction: A randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Behavior management of children during dental treatment is an important but challenging issue. As a new technique, VR has been applied in pediatric dental anxiety. But there is no final conclusion whether VR reduces children's dental anxiety.

METHODS

The aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness of a digital intervention using virtual reality (VR) helmets on dental anxiety, pain perception, and behavior triggered for children, as well as occurrence of simulator sickness in local anesthesia and primary teeth extraction. A total of 128 children, who needed primary teeth extraction under local anesthesia, were randomly allocated into two groups: use VR helmets and traditional behavior guidance procedures (control). Modified Child Fear Survey Schedule Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS), Wong-Baker FACES Pain Scale, Houpt Scale, and Simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ) were used to assess children's dental anxiety, pain perception, and behavior triggered and occurrence of simulator sickness.

RESULTS

CFSS-DS score in the VR group was significantly decreased after dental treatment (34.58±6.90 before operation and 32.32±15.58 after operation, p = .02). The score of Wong Baker Scale in the VR group (3.47±0.76) was significantly lower than that in the control group (5.56±1.13, p = .015). There was no significant difference in the Houpt Behavior Scale score and the SSQ score between the VR group and the control group (p = .35, p = .305).

CONCLUSION

The use of VR helmets in primary teeth extraction can significantly reduce dental anxiety and pain perception in children without occurrence of simulator sickness.

Evaluation of Efficacy of Oral Ketamine and Midazolam Combination Drug in Different Doses in Different Groups Used for Moderate Sedation in Pediatric Dentistry Randomized-comparative Trial

Background

Dental phobia and apprehension in children lead to difficulty with behavior management. During dental procedure if a child had a bad experience, he will develop greater apprehension, which makes further treatment difficult.

Aim and objective

The aim and objective of the present study is to assess and compare the sedation and wake-up behavior status of oral combinations of three different doses of ketamine and midazolam drugs in three different groups mixed in 1 mL of honey.

Methodology

This study was a randomized, clinical study that included patients ranging from 3 to 9 years of age with American Society of Anesthesiologists–I status with carious teeth, were randomly allocated among three groups where group (A) received 0.2 mg/kg of oral midazolam and 5 mg/kg oral ketamine combination drugs, group (B) received 0.3 mg/kg of oral midazolam with 3 mg/kg of oral ketamine combination drugs and group (C) received 0.4 mg/kg of oral midazolam with 2 mg/kg of oral ketamine combination drugs mixed in 1 mL of honey.

Child patient's who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation was recorded from starting of the treatment until discharged from the monitoring room. Ease of treatment completion was evaluated according to the Houpt scale, patients’ behavior, sedation, and wake-up behavior status were evaluated with modified observer assessment of alertness and sedation scale (MOAAS).

Results

In the study, various doses of ketamine-midazolam combination drugs in three different groups resulted in a clement increase in heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) during the procedure but variations among the groups were not significant. As per MOAAS, the sedation success rate in group B (83.3%) was more than group A (66.6%) and group C (66.6%).

All the three groups equally showed the same i.e., (91.6%), behavior score during treatment. Ease of treatment completion was excellent in group B (83.3%) followed by group A and group C [i.e.], (66.7%). Whereas, wake-up behavior score as per MOAAS scale was found to be calm and cooperative in group B (91.7%) followed by group C (88.9%) and group A (83.3%).

Conclusion

In the present study oral ketamine-midazolam combination drugs can be used without harm and effectively as moderate sedation in an uncooperative pediatric patient.

How to cite this article

Thakur S, Verma K, Singhal P, et al. Evaluation of Efficacy of Oral Ketamine and Midazolam Combination Drug in Different Doses in Different Groups Used for Moderate Sedation in Pediatric Dentistry Randomized-comparative Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(S-2):S151–S156.

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

Outpatient pediatric sedation is challenging. This study aimed to test intranasal dexmedetomidine efficacy as a single drug or combined with ketamine (DK) to sedate children undergoing dental treatment. Children < 7 years were randomized into dexmedetomidine 2 mcg/kg and ketamine 1 mg/kg (DK) or dexmedetomidine 2.5 mcg/kg (D) groups. Videos from the dental sedation allowed the systematic assessment of children's behavior (primary outcome) according to the Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS). Secondary outcomes were parental and dentist satisfaction, adverse events, and recovery time. The data were analyzed descriptively and through regression models. Participants were 88 children (44 per group; 50 boys). The duration of quiet behavior (OSUBRS) was higher than 50% (DK mean 58.4 [standard deviation 38.1]; D 55.2 [39.1]; p = 0.225). Parents (DK 78.0 [32.2]; D 72.7 [35.1]; p = 0.203) and dentists (KD 62.7 [41.0]; D 62.8 [40.1]; p = 0.339) were overall satisfied. Adverse events occurred in 16 cases (DK n = 10, 62.5%; D n= 6, 37.5%; p = 0.104) and were minor. The median recovery time in the DK group was 1.3 times greater than in group D (p < 0.05). Intranasal sedation with dexmedetomidine alone is equally efficacious and satisfactory for pediatric sedation with fewer adverse events and faster recovery than the DK combination.

Evaluation of nebulised dexmedetomidine in blunting haemodynamic response to intubation: A prospective randomised study

Background and Aim:

The process of laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation is associated with intense sympathetic activity, which may precipitate intra-operative complications. Taking the advantage of dexmedetomidine's good bioavailability and rapid absorption through nasal mucosa; we contemplated this study to evaluate the effects of nebulised dexmedetomidine as a premedication in blunting the haemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation.

Methods:

This prospective, randomised, comparative study was conducted in 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I, II patients. The primary outcome was to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine nebulisation in blunting the stress response to laryngoscopy and intubation. The secondary outcome was to study its adverse effects. The study population was divided randomly into two groups. Control group C (n = 50) received nebulisation with 5 ml of normal saline and group D (n = 50) received 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine 5 ml 10 min before induction in sitting position.

Results:

Demographics were comparable. Following laryngoscopy and intubation, systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP), response entropy (RE) and state entropy (SE) were markedly increased in the control group whereas in group D there was a fall in SBP (at 1 min-126.64 ± 26.37; P 0.01, 5 min-109.50 ± 16.83; P 0.02, 10 min-106.94 ± 17.01; P 0.03), DBP (at 1 min-83.18 ± 17.89; P 0.001, 5 min-66.40 ± 13.88; P 0.001, 10 min- 62.56 ± 14.91; P 0.01) and MAP (at 1 min-99.68 ± 19.22; P 0.001, 5 min- 84.08 ± 13.66; P 0.003, 10 min- 81.74 ± 14.79; P 0.008), RE and SE which was statistically significant (P 0.002). There was a dose sparing effect of propofol in group D; sedation score was comparable.

Conclusion:

Nebulised dexmedetomidine effectively blunts the stress response to laryngoscopy and intubation with no adverse effects.

Intranasal dexmedetomidine for sedation in children; a review

Dexmedetomidine is an α2 adrenoreceptor agonist that may be administered by the intranasal route as a sole sedative agent in children. It is odourless, colourless and tasteless and is formulated in a concentration of 100µg.ml^-1. We performed a review of published randomised controlled trials in order to determine the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine for sedation in children. Fourteen trials were eligible for inclusion in the review and contained a total of 1809 patients ranging in age from one month to 14 years. Intranasal dexmedetomidine was administered in a dose range of 1-4µg.kg^-1 and was compared with various other sedatives. Dexmedetomidine was administered by either drops or a mucosal atomiser device. The procedures ranged from non-painful examinations such as magnetic resonance imaging scans and transthoracic echocardiography to painful procedures such as dentistry and venous cannulation. Administration of 2µg.kg^-1 appears to be the optimal dose.

The comparison of dexmedetomidine and ketamine for pediatric dental surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

INTRODUCTION

Dexmedetomidine and ketamine are used for the sedation of pediatric dental surgery. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the sedation of dexmedetomidine and ketamine for pediatric dental surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the influence of dexmedetomidine versus ketamine on pediatric dental surgery are included. Two investigators independently have searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Four RCTs involving 163 children are included in the meta-analysis. Compared with ketamine for pediatric dental surgery, dexmedetomidine results in comparable sedation level (very low quality, 2 RCTs, n = 40; Std. MD = -0.26; 95% CI = -0.74 to 0.23; P = .31), intraoperative analgesia scores (very low quality, 2 RCTs, n = 98; Std. MD = 0.17; 95% CI = -0.23 to 0.57; P = .40), postoperative analgesia scores (very low quality, 2 RCTs, n = 98; Std. MD = 0.23; 95% CI = -0.17 to 0.62; P = .27), DBP (very low quality, 3 RCTs, n = 123; Std. MD = -0.38; 95% CI = -1.04 to 0.27; P = .25) and SpO2 (very low quality, 3 RCTs, n = 123; Std. MD = 0.24; 95% CI = -0.20 to 0.69; P = .28), but significantly decreases heart rate (very low quality, 3 RCTs, n = 123; Std. MD = -1.51; 95% CI = -2.75 to -0.27; P = .02) and SBP (very low quality, 3 RCTs, n = 123; Std. MD = -0.62; 95% CI = -1.16 to -0.08; P = .02), longer recovery time (very low quality, 3 RCTs, n = 138; Std. MD = 1.74; 95% CI = 0.23 to 3.25; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine and ketamine have similar sedation, analgesia scores, and hemodynamic balance, but very low quality of the evidence (GRADE) is revealed in this meta-analysis.

Sedation of children undergoing dental treatment

BACKGROUND

Children's fear about dental treatment may lead to behaviour management problems for the dentist, which can be a barrier to the successful dental treatment of children. Sedation can be used to relieve anxiety and manage behaviour in children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need to determine from published research which agents, dosages and regimens are effective. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and previously updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and relative efficacy of conscious sedation agents and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 22 February 2018); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 22 February 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 February 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 22 February 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials of conscious sedation comparing two or more drugs/techniques/placebo undertaken by the dentist or one of the dental team in children up to 16 years of age. We excluded cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted, in duplicate, information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results. Where information in trial reports was unclear or incomplete authors of trials were contacted. Trials were assessed for risk of bias. Cochrane statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 studies with a total of 3704 participants. Forty studies (81%) were at high risk of bias, nine (18%) were at unclear risk of bias, with just one assessed as at low risk of bias. There were 34 different sedatives used with or without inhalational nitrous oxide. Dosages, mode of administration and time of administration varied widely. Studies were grouped into placebo-controlled, dosage and head-to-head comparisons. Meta-analysis of the available data for the primary outcome (behaviour) was possible for studies investigating oral midazolam versus placebo only. There is moderate-certainty evidence from six small clinically heterogeneous studies at high or unclear risk of bias, that the use of oral midazolam in doses between 0.25 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg is associated with more co-operative behaviour compared to placebo; standardized mean difference (SMD) favoured midazolam (SMD 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.33, P < 0.0001, I2 = 90%; 6 studies; 202 participants). It was not possible to draw conclusions regarding the secondary outcomes due to inconsistent or inadequate reporting or both.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some moderate-certainty evidence that oral midazolam is an effective sedative agent for children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need for further well-designed and well-reported clinical trials to evaluate other potential sedation agents. Further recommendations for future research are described and it is suggested that future trials evaluate experimental regimens in comparison with oral midazolam or inhaled nitrous oxide.

A Comparison of Oral Midazolam-ketamine, Dexmedetomidine-fentanyl, and Dexmedetomidine-ketamine Combinations as Sedative Agents in Pediatric Dentistry: A Triple-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction:

It is common to encounter a patient who is anxious to the magnitude that precludes the possibility of provision of dental treatment. This study aims to evaluate and compare the sedative effect of oral combinations of midazolam-ketamine (MK), dexmedetomidine-fentanyl (DF), and dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) in a group of uncooperative children requiring dental treatment.

Methodology:

This was a prospective, randomized, triple-blind study where 36 children who were 3–9 year old with American Society of Anesthesiologists –I status and presenting early childhood caries were randomly assigned to: Group A – 0.3 mg/kg of M and 5 mg/kg K, Group B – 2 ug/kg of D with 3 ug/kg of F, and Group C – 2ug/kg of D with 5 mg/kg of K in 1 mL honey. Patients' blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation were recorded from the start of the procedure till discharge. Patients' behavior, sedation status, and wake-up behavior were evaluated with Modified Observer Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale and ease of treatment completion by Houpt scale.

Results:

Hemodynamic changes were statistically insignificant in all three groups. 72.8% of patients in Group A and 58.3% of patients in Group B were successfully sedated during treatment. Behavior improvement was seen in all three groups during treatment with statistically insignificant difference in behavior scores produced by Group C. Ease of treatment completion was moderately better with Group A.

Conclusion:

Oral DK has a comparable sedative property with oral MK combination. Oral DF promises to be a potential sedative agent for children due to its successful anxiolysis.

Phase IV, Open-Label, Safety Study Evaluating the Use of Dexmedetomidine in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Procedure-Type Sedation

Dexmedetomidine (Precedex™) may be used as an alternative sedative in children, maintaining spontaneous breathing, and avoiding tracheal intubation in a non-intubated moderate or deep sedation (NI-MDS) approach. This open-label, single-arm, multicenter study evaluated the safety of dexmedetomidine in a pediatric population receiving NI-MDS in an operating room or a procedure room, with an intensivist or anesthesiologist in attendance, for elective diagnostic or therapeutic procedures expected to take at least 30 min. The primary endpoint was incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Patients received one of two doses dependent on age: patients aged ≥28 weeks' gestational age to <1 month postnatal received dose level 1 (0.1 μg/kg load; 0.05-0.2 μg/kg/h infusion); those aged 1 month to <17 years received dose level 2 (1 μg/kg load; 0.2-2.0 μg/kg/h infusion). Sedation efficacy was assessed and defined as adequate sedation for at least 80% of the time and successful completion of the procedure without the need for rescue medication. In all, 91 patients were enrolled (dose level 1, n = 1; dose level 2, n = 90); of these, 90 received treatment and 82 completed the study. Eight patients in dose level 2 discontinued treatment for the following reasons: early completion of diagnostic or therapeutic procedure (n = 3); change in medical condition (need for intubation) requiring deeper level of sedation (n = 2); adverse event (AE; hives and emesis), lack of efficacy, and physician decision (patient not sedated enough to complete procedure; n = 1 each). Sixty-seven patients experienced 147 TEAEs. The two most commonly reported AEs were respiratory depression (bradypnea; reported per protocol-defined criteria, based on absolute respiratory rate values for age or relative decrease of 30% from baseline) and hypotension. Four patients received glycopyrrolate for bradycardia and seven patients received intravenous fluids for hypotension. SpO₂ dropped by 10% in two patients, but resolved without need for manual ventilation. All other reported AEs were consistent with the known safety profile of dexmedetomidine. Two of the 78 patients in the efficacy-evaluable population met all sedation efficacy criteria. Dexmedetomidine was well-tolerated in pediatric patients undergoing procedure-type sedation.

[Comparison between propofol and propofol-remifentanil sedation under target-controlled infusion for impacted supernumerary teeth extraction surgery for children]

Objective The aim of this study is to compare sedation titrated under target-controlled infusion of propofol and propofol-remifentanil for impacted supernumerary teeth extraction surgery for children. Methods A total of 60 children with anterior maxillary region impacted supernumerary teeth extraction surgery were divided randomly into two groups, namely, propofol group (group P, n=30) and propofol-remifentanil group (group PR, n=30). In group P, a titrated infusion of propofol was started until the modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) scale reached level 3 before the actual surgery. In group PR, a remifentanil infusion with a target plasma concentration of 1 ng·mL⁻¹ was started until the operation was finished. A titrated infusion of propofol was also started until the modified OAA/S score reached level 3 before the actual surgery. The Houpt behavior scale was adopted to evaluate the cooperation of each patient in both groups. The heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, oxyhemoglobin saturation, and Narcotrend index, complications, adverse reactions and propofol infusion of all patients were recorded during the operation. Results The Houpt behavior scales in group PR were better than those in group P (P<0.05). The oxyhemoglobin saturation and respiratory rate in group PR were lower than that in group P (P<0.05). The heart rate, blood pressure and NI in two groups were no significant difference (P>0.05). The incidence of respiratory depression and anterograde amnesia in group PR were higher than that in group P (P<0.05). Conclusion Sedation titrated under the target-controlled infusion of propofol and that titrated under propofol-remifentanil for impacted supernumerary teeth extraction surgery for children are safe. The sedation titrated under target-controlled infusion of propofol-remifentanil is better than sedation by propofol when inhaling oxygen.

How Do Observational Scales Correlate the Ratings of Children's Behavior during Pediatric Procedural Sedation?

Background. There is little information regarding the ability of observational scales to properly assess children's behavior during procedural sedation. Aim. To evaluate the characteristics of the Houpt scales, the Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS) and the Venham Behavior Rating Scale when applied to preschool children undergoing conscious dental sedation. Design. This study included 27 children, 4–6 years old with early childhood caries that participated in a clinical trial (NCT02284204) that investigated two sedative regimes using oral midazolam/ketamine. Dental appointments were video-recorded; five calibrated observers assessed 1,209 minutes of video recording to score the children's behavior, following the instructions of the investigated scales. Data were analyzed by descriptive analysis and Spearman correlation tests (P < 0.05). Results. The Houpt overall behavior and the Venham scale were highly correlated (rho = −0.87; P < 0.001). OSUBRS scores were better correlated with Houpt overall behavior and Venham ratings, when compared to Houpt scores in the categories for movement and crying. Conclusions. The Houpt overall behavior and the Venham scores are global scales that properly measure children's behavior during dental sedation. Continuous assessment with OSUBRS through videos has a chance to give more precise data, while the Houpt categories can easily demonstrate children's behavior during procedures.