Oral Midazolam Vs Promethazine as Pre Sedation Medication in Pediatric Dentistry

G. Ansari, S. Razavi, L. Toomarian, A. Eghbali, S. Shayeghi
{"title":"Oral Midazolam Vs Promethazine as Pre Sedation Medication in Pediatric Dentistry","authors":"G. Ansari, S. Razavi, L. Toomarian, A. Eghbali, S. Shayeghi","doi":"10.22037/JDS.V36I2.24547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives Pre- and post-sedation effect of oral Midazolam to promethazine in2-6 yrs old fearful children for dental treatment Methods This randomized clinical trial was carried out on a group of 26 children aged 2-6 years referred to the dental school due to their fear and multiple dental needs. Patients were selected from ASA I or II classification and scored 1 in Frankl Behavior scale. Each patient was scheduled for two subsequent visits to receive one of the two pre medications before IV sedation. Each patient served as self-control and randomly assigned to either group A: receiving Midazolam oral as premed in 1 st visit or group B: receiving Promethazine oral as the premed in 1 st visit. Six hour NPO was instructed prior to sedation visit. Monitoring vital signs were conducted at every 15 minutes starting with base line before any drug administration. Sedation score was recorded using Houpt Sedation scale. Post sedation problems were recorded by operator. Data were analyzed using Student t test and Kruskal Wallis. Results No significant difference was noted between the patient perceptions at the two different visits. Children did not show a significant difference on symptoms such as Crying, Movement, Sleep and overall behavior in two visits at the first 15 minutes of sedative injection. Post-operative complications were having no significant difference. Lower sickness and vomiting were reported following promethazine intake. Conclusion Promethazine seems to be as effective and as acceptable premedication as Midazolam in pediatric dentistry.","PeriodicalId":21563,"journal":{"name":"Shahid Beheshti University Dental Journal","volume":"68 1","pages":"47-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shahid Beheshti University Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/JDS.V36I2.24547","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objectives Pre- and post-sedation effect of oral Midazolam to promethazine in2-6 yrs old fearful children for dental treatment Methods This randomized clinical trial was carried out on a group of 26 children aged 2-6 years referred to the dental school due to their fear and multiple dental needs. Patients were selected from ASA I or II classification and scored 1 in Frankl Behavior scale. Each patient was scheduled for two subsequent visits to receive one of the two pre medications before IV sedation. Each patient served as self-control and randomly assigned to either group A: receiving Midazolam oral as premed in 1 st visit or group B: receiving Promethazine oral as the premed in 1 st visit. Six hour NPO was instructed prior to sedation visit. Monitoring vital signs were conducted at every 15 minutes starting with base line before any drug administration. Sedation score was recorded using Houpt Sedation scale. Post sedation problems were recorded by operator. Data were analyzed using Student t test and Kruskal Wallis. Results No significant difference was noted between the patient perceptions at the two different visits. Children did not show a significant difference on symptoms such as Crying, Movement, Sleep and overall behavior in two visits at the first 15 minutes of sedative injection. Post-operative complications were having no significant difference. Lower sickness and vomiting were reported following promethazine intake. Conclusion Promethazine seems to be as effective and as acceptable premedication as Midazolam in pediatric dentistry.
口服咪达唑仑与异丙嗪作为小儿牙科的预镇静药物
目的观察口服咪达唑仑对异丙嗪在2 ~ 6岁恐惧儿童牙科治疗中的镇静前后效果。方法选取26例2 ~ 6岁因恐惧和多种牙科需求而转至牙科学校的儿童进行随机临床试验。患者分为ASA I或II级,Frankl行为量表得分为1分。每位患者在静脉镇静前安排两次后续访问,接受两种预用药中的一种。每个患者进行自我控制,随机分为A组:第一次就诊时口服咪达唑仑作为预用药,B组:第一次就诊时口服异丙嗪作为预用药。镇静访视前6小时NPO。在给药前从基线开始每15分钟监测一次生命体征。采用Houpt镇静评分法记录镇静评分。操作者记录镇静后的问题。数据分析采用Student t检验和Kruskal Wallis。结果两种访视方式的患者感知无显著差异。儿童在注射镇静剂前15分钟的两次就诊中,在哭泣、运动、睡眠和整体行为等症状上没有表现出显著差异。术后并发症无明显差异。服用异丙嗪后,疾病和呕吐减少。结论异丙嗪与咪达唑仑在儿童牙科治疗中是同样有效和可接受的前用药。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信