Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness and acceptance of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam for sedation in children aged 5-8 years using a mucosal atomizer device: a randomized controlled clinical study.

Yash Lalwani, Bhavna Dave, Lipsa Shah
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness and acceptance of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam for sedation in children aged 5-8 years using a mucosal atomizer device: a randomized controlled clinical study.","authors":"Yash Lalwani, Bhavna Dave, Lipsa Shah","doi":"10.17245/jdapm.2025.25.2.109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient age, preoperative anxiety, dental requirement, risks associated with pharmaceutical management, safety, parental expectations, and cost influence the choice of pharmacological behavior management. Thus, this randomized controlled clinical study aimed to compare the effectiveness and acceptance of intranasal dexmedetomidine and midazolam for sedation in children aged 5-8 years using a mucosal atomizer device (MAD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 48 participants with Frankl's II behavior were randomly divided into two groups: Group I received intranasal midazolam (0.25 mg/kg), and Group II received intranasal dexmedetomidine (1.5 µg/kg). The primary outcomes assessed were drug acceptance, onset and effectiveness of sedation, and pre-and post-treatment anxiety levels. Secondary measures were also evaluated pre- and post-treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Intranasal dexmedetomidine demonstrated significantly better drug acceptance (P < 0.001). Midazolam had a faster onset but was less effective than dexmedetomidine (P < 0.001). Additionally, dexmedetomidine exhibited better anxiolytic properties than midazolam (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dexmedetomidine was better accepted by children aged 5-8 years, was more effective, and had superior anxiolytic properties compared with midazolam.</p>","PeriodicalId":94330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine","volume":"25 2","pages":"109-122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11972927/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17245/jdapm.2025.25.2.109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient age, preoperative anxiety, dental requirement, risks associated with pharmaceutical management, safety, parental expectations, and cost influence the choice of pharmacological behavior management. Thus, this randomized controlled clinical study aimed to compare the effectiveness and acceptance of intranasal dexmedetomidine and midazolam for sedation in children aged 5-8 years using a mucosal atomizer device (MAD).

Methods: A total of 48 participants with Frankl's II behavior were randomly divided into two groups: Group I received intranasal midazolam (0.25 mg/kg), and Group II received intranasal dexmedetomidine (1.5 µg/kg). The primary outcomes assessed were drug acceptance, onset and effectiveness of sedation, and pre-and post-treatment anxiety levels. Secondary measures were also evaluated pre- and post-treatment.

Results: Intranasal dexmedetomidine demonstrated significantly better drug acceptance (P < 0.001). Midazolam had a faster onset but was less effective than dexmedetomidine (P < 0.001). Additionally, dexmedetomidine exhibited better anxiolytic properties than midazolam (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine was better accepted by children aged 5-8 years, was more effective, and had superior anxiolytic properties compared with midazolam.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信