The safety and efficacy of using a concentrated intranasal midazolam formulation for paediatric dental sedation.

SAAD digest Pub Date : 2011-01-01
Michael Wood
{"title":"The safety and efficacy of using a concentrated intranasal midazolam formulation for paediatric dental sedation.","authors":"Michael Wood","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To add to the evidence base for safe and effective paediatric conscious sedation techniques in primary dental care.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To consider the safety and effectiveness of an alternative sedation technique for facilitating dental treatment in anxious children, thereby avoiding dental general anaesthetic.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Leagrave Dental Sedation Clinic. A primary care-based general and referral clinic for anxious patients, special care dentistry and oral surgery.</p><p><strong>Subjects, materials and methods: </strong>This is a prospective service evaluation of 114 selected anxious children requiring invasive dental treatment. Each child was administered 0.25 mg/kg intranasal midazolam using a concentrated 40 mg/ml midazolam (INM) in 2% lignocaine solution.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Successful completion of intended dental treatment with a child who is co-operative and who meets the UK accepted definition of conscious sedation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>57% of the children found the administration of the new formulation acceptable. Of the 114 patients who received INM, 104 completed the treatment (91%). The 10 children who could not complete the treatment with INM were converted to intravenous sedation and treatment was completed successfully at the same appointment. During treatment there was no desaturation and only one patient desaturated briefly in the recovery area. Parents rated the technique acceptable in 76% of cases and would have the procedure repeated in 83% of cases. Parents rated this technique as having 8.3 out of 10 with only 5 parents awarding a score of less than 7 out of 10. Side effects included blurred vision, sneezing, headaches, restlessness with one patient having post-operative nausea and vomiting.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In selected cases intranasal sedation provides a safe and effective alternative for dental GA in short invasive procedures limited to one or two quadrants in children. Other techniques, e.g., oral and intravenous sedation, appear to have a much higher acceptability of administration. This technique may be useful if inhalation sedation, oral sedation or intravenous sedation is considered and the child is still unco-operative, either as a technique on its own or to facilitate cannulation for intravenous sedation. It is recommended that this technique should only be used by dentists skilled in intravenous paediatric sedation with midazolam with the appropriate staff training and equipment at their disposal.</p>","PeriodicalId":21571,"journal":{"name":"SAAD digest","volume":"27 ","pages":"16-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SAAD digest","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To add to the evidence base for safe and effective paediatric conscious sedation techniques in primary dental care.

Objective: To consider the safety and effectiveness of an alternative sedation technique for facilitating dental treatment in anxious children, thereby avoiding dental general anaesthetic.

Setting: Leagrave Dental Sedation Clinic. A primary care-based general and referral clinic for anxious patients, special care dentistry and oral surgery.

Subjects, materials and methods: This is a prospective service evaluation of 114 selected anxious children requiring invasive dental treatment. Each child was administered 0.25 mg/kg intranasal midazolam using a concentrated 40 mg/ml midazolam (INM) in 2% lignocaine solution.

Main outcome measures: Successful completion of intended dental treatment with a child who is co-operative and who meets the UK accepted definition of conscious sedation.

Results: 57% of the children found the administration of the new formulation acceptable. Of the 114 patients who received INM, 104 completed the treatment (91%). The 10 children who could not complete the treatment with INM were converted to intravenous sedation and treatment was completed successfully at the same appointment. During treatment there was no desaturation and only one patient desaturated briefly in the recovery area. Parents rated the technique acceptable in 76% of cases and would have the procedure repeated in 83% of cases. Parents rated this technique as having 8.3 out of 10 with only 5 parents awarding a score of less than 7 out of 10. Side effects included blurred vision, sneezing, headaches, restlessness with one patient having post-operative nausea and vomiting.

Conclusion: In selected cases intranasal sedation provides a safe and effective alternative for dental GA in short invasive procedures limited to one or two quadrants in children. Other techniques, e.g., oral and intravenous sedation, appear to have a much higher acceptability of administration. This technique may be useful if inhalation sedation, oral sedation or intravenous sedation is considered and the child is still unco-operative, either as a technique on its own or to facilitate cannulation for intravenous sedation. It is recommended that this technique should only be used by dentists skilled in intravenous paediatric sedation with midazolam with the appropriate staff training and equipment at their disposal.

使用浓缩鼻内咪达唑仑制剂用于儿科牙科镇静的安全性和有效性。
目的:为在初级牙科保健中安全有效的儿科有意识镇静技术提供证据基础。目的:探讨一种替代镇静技术的安全性和有效性,以促进牙科治疗焦虑儿童,从而避免牙科全身麻醉。地点:利格拉夫牙科镇静诊所。一个以初级保健为基础的普通和转诊诊所,为焦虑患者提供特殊护理牙科和口腔外科。对象、材料和方法:本研究是对114名需要有创牙科治疗的焦虑儿童进行前瞻性服务评价。每名儿童在2%的利多卡因溶液中使用40 mg/ml咪达唑仑(INM),经鼻给药0.25 mg/kg咪达唑仑。主要结果测量:成功完成预期的牙科治疗与儿童谁是合作的,谁符合英国公认的清醒镇静的定义。结果:57%的患儿对新配方的给药可接受。在114例接受INM治疗的患者中,104例(91%)完成了治疗。不能完成INM治疗的10名儿童转为静脉镇静,并在同一时间成功完成治疗。在治疗期间,没有发生过血饱和度降低,只有一名患者在恢复区出现过短暂的血饱和度降低。在76%的病例中,家长认为这项技术是可以接受的,在83%的病例中,他们会重复这一过程。家长们给这个技巧打了8.3分(满分10分),只有5位家长打了低于7分(满分10分)。副作用包括视力模糊、打喷嚏、头痛、烦躁不安,其中一名患者术后出现恶心和呕吐。结论:在选定的病例中,鼻内镇静是一种安全有效的替代牙科GA的短期侵入性手术,限制在儿童的一个或两个象限。其他技术,例如口服和静脉注射镇静,似乎具有更高的可接受性。如果考虑吸入镇静、口服镇静或静脉镇静,而儿童仍不配合,该技术可能有用,无论是作为一项技术本身,还是促进静脉镇静插管。建议这项技术只应由熟练使用咪达唑仑静脉注射儿科镇静的牙医使用,并有适当的工作人员培训和设备可供他们使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书