Sedative efficacy of Midazolam in pediatric dental treatment (Systematic review and Meta analysis)
Main Article Content
Abstract
Worldwide, Midazolam has been widely and effectively used for pediatric dental sedation; however, it is very limited used in Vietnam. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on 7 studies with 871 children under 16 years of age in order to evaluate the effectiveness and to analyze the influencing factors of midazolam intervention through oral and mucosal tract. Four studies in the meta-analysis of 664 interventions had a higher sedation success rate through oral (87,2%) than mucosal (81.4%) route; Odd Ratio Fixed: 1.59 times (95%CI: 1.03 – 2.45), Odd Ratio Overall: 1,59 times (95%CI: 1.03 – 2.46). Two other studies comparing 71 children showed that the duration of mucosal (33.2 minutes) was shorter than oral work (40.09 minutes). All differences were not statistically significant with p > 0.05. In addition, mucosal sedation has a faster onset; altering the taste of oral drugs, using N2O and local anesthetics all contribute to the increase in duration and effectiveness of sedation. In conclusion: two routes of administering Midazolam are highly feasible in pediatric dental sedation in Vietnam, with Midazolam mucosal route being more suitable when early intervention is required.
Article Details
Keywords
Pediatric; Sedation; Midazolam; Dentistry
References
2. Aydintug YS, Okcu KM, Guner Y, Gunaydin Y, Sencimen M. Evaluation of oral or rectal midazolam as conscious sedation for pediatric patients in oral surgery. Mil Med. 2004;169(4):270 - 273.
3. Haidich AB. Meta - analysis in medical research. Hippokratia. 2010;14(Suppl 1):29 - 37.
4. Milgrom P, Beirne OR, Fiset L, Weinstein P, Tay KM, Martin M. The safety and efficacy of outpatient midazolam intravenous sedation for oral surgery with and without fentanyl. Anesth Prog. 1993;40(3):57 - 62.
5. Corcuera - Flores JR, Silvestre - Rangil J, Cutando - Soriano A, López - Jiménez J. Current methods of sedation in dental patients - a systematic review of the literature. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016;21(5):e579 - 586.
6. Torres - Pérez J, Tapia - García I, Rosales - Berber MA, Hernández - Sierra JF, Pozos - Guillén Ade J. Comparison of three conscious sedation regimens for pediatric dental patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2007;31(3):183 - 186.
7. Manoj M, Satya Prakash MVS, Swaminathan S, Kamaladevi RK. Comparison of ease of administration of intranasal midazolam spray and oral midazolam syrup by parents as premedication to children undergoing elective surgery. J Anesth. 2017;31(3):351 - 357.
8. Silva CC, et al. , Conscious sedation vs general anesthesia in pediatric dentistry - a review. MedicalExpress, 2015. 2(1).
9. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta - analysis protocols (PRISMA - P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.
10. Higgins J WG. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2011.
11. Miller SAaJLF, Enhancing your practice through evidence - based decision making: PICO, learning how to ask good questions. The Journal of Evidenced - Based Dental Practice, 2001. 1(2): p. 136 - 141.
12. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, et al. Evaluating non - randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):iii - x, 1 - 173.
13. Berger VW, Alperson SY. A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2009;4(2):79 - 88.
14. Uman LS. Systematic reviews and meta - analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;20(1):57 - 59.
15. Lee - Kim SJ, Fadavi S, Punwani I, Koerber A. Nasal versus oral midazolam sedation for pediatric dental patients. J Dent Child (Chic). 2004;71(2):126 - 130.
16. Johnson E, Briskie D, Majewski R, Edwards S, Reynolds P. The physiologic and behavioral effects of oral and intranasal midazolam in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent. 2010;32(3):229 - 238.
17. Heard C, Smith J, Creighton P, Joshi P, Feldman D, Lerman J. A comparison of four sedation techniques for pediatric dental surgery. Paediatr Anaesth. 2010;20(10):924 - 930.
18. Gentz R, Casamassimo P, Amini H, Claman D, Smiley M. Safety and Efficacy of 3 Pediatric Midazolam Moderate Sedation Regimens. Anesth Prog. 2017;64(2):66 - 72.
19. Tavassoli - Hojjati SDM, Mehran MDM, Haghgoo RDM, Tohid - Rahbari MDM, Ahmadi RDM. Comparison of oral and buccal midazolam for pediatric dental sedation: a randomized, cross - over, clinical trial for efficacy, acceptance and safety. Iran J Pediatr. 2014;24(2):198 - 206.
20. Özen B, Malamed SF, Cetiner S, Özalp N, Özer L, Altun C. Outcomes of moderate sedation in paediatric dental patients. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(2):144 - 150.
21. Musani IE, Chandan NV. A comparison of the sedative effect of oral versus nasal midazolam combined with nitrous oxide in uncooperative children. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2015;16(5):417 - 424.
22. Ashley PF, Williams CE, Moles DR, Parry J. Sedation versus general anaesthesia for provision of dental treatment in under 18 year olds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(1):Cd006334.
23. Coté CJ, Cohen IT, Suresh S, et al. A comparison of three doses of a commercially prepared oral midazolam syrup in children. Anesth Analg. 2002;94(1):37 - 43, table of contents.
24. Brosius KK BC. Midazolam premedication in children: a comparison of two oral dosage formulations on sedation score and plasma midazolam levels. . Anesth Analg2003;96: 392 - 395.
25. C. G. Oral midazolam - Grapefruit juice drug interaction. . Pediatr Dent 2001;23:365 - 366.
26. Lochary M WS, Larsen P et al. Temperament as a predictor of behavior for conscious sedation in dentistry. . Pediatr Dent 1993; 15: 348 - 352.
27. Donaldson M, Goodchild JH. Use of bispectral index system (BIS) to Monitor Enteral Conscious (moderate) sedation during general dental procedures. J Can Dent Assoc. 2009;75(10):709.