口腔用咪达唑仑与鼻用咪达唑仑镇静治疗不配合患儿的疗效比较。

IF 1.9 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
International Journal of Dentistry Pub Date : 2025-03-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/ijod/4269519
Doaa Arnaout, Mohamed Altinawi, Imad Katbeh, Nikolay Tuturov, Ahmad Saleh
{"title":"口腔用咪达唑仑与鼻用咪达唑仑镇静治疗不配合患儿的疗效比较。","authors":"Doaa Arnaout, Mohamed Altinawi, Imad Katbeh, Nikolay Tuturov, Ahmad Saleh","doi":"10.1155/ijod/4269519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Behavioral management techniques are not always sufficient, and then it is necessary to use pharmacological management methods. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of buccal midazolam sedation with intranasal midazolam in non-cooperative children during dental treatment. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> A randomized single blinded comparative clinical study consisted of 40 children aged 3-6 years who were divided randomly into two groups: Group A intranasal midazolam and Group B buccal midazolam. The onset time of action and recovery time from sedation were compared between the two groups, and the efficacy of sedation was evaluated by Houpt behavior scale. The independent student's <i>T</i> test, Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> test, the Wilcoxon test and the Chi-square test were used. <b>Results:</b> There were no statistically significant differences in the onset time of action (<i>p</i>=0.458) and recovery time from sedation (<i>p</i>=0.148). There were no statically significant differences between the two groups in sleeping, crying, and movement categories (<i>p</i>=0.747), (<i>p</i>=0.183), (<i>p</i>=0.732), respectively, or in the overall Houpt scale (<i>p</i>=0.393), there were statistically significant differences in the sleep variable between the two studied phases in the intranasal group (<i>p</i>=0.014) and in the movement variable in the buccal group (<i>p</i>=0.039). <b>Conclusion:</b> Both buccal midazolam and intranasal sedation were effective in the management of uncooperative children during dental treatment at 85% and 80%, respectively. <b>Trial Registration:</b> Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12624000945527.</p>","PeriodicalId":13947,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Dentistry","volume":"2025 ","pages":"4269519"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11932745/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Efficacy of Buccal Midazolam in Comparison With Intranasal Midazolam Sedation in Uncooperative Children During Dental Treatment.\",\"authors\":\"Doaa Arnaout, Mohamed Altinawi, Imad Katbeh, Nikolay Tuturov, Ahmad Saleh\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/ijod/4269519\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Behavioral management techniques are not always sufficient, and then it is necessary to use pharmacological management methods. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of buccal midazolam sedation with intranasal midazolam in non-cooperative children during dental treatment. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> A randomized single blinded comparative clinical study consisted of 40 children aged 3-6 years who were divided randomly into two groups: Group A intranasal midazolam and Group B buccal midazolam. The onset time of action and recovery time from sedation were compared between the two groups, and the efficacy of sedation was evaluated by Houpt behavior scale. The independent student's <i>T</i> test, Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> test, the Wilcoxon test and the Chi-square test were used. <b>Results:</b> There were no statistically significant differences in the onset time of action (<i>p</i>=0.458) and recovery time from sedation (<i>p</i>=0.148). There were no statically significant differences between the two groups in sleeping, crying, and movement categories (<i>p</i>=0.747), (<i>p</i>=0.183), (<i>p</i>=0.732), respectively, or in the overall Houpt scale (<i>p</i>=0.393), there were statistically significant differences in the sleep variable between the two studied phases in the intranasal group (<i>p</i>=0.014) and in the movement variable in the buccal group (<i>p</i>=0.039). <b>Conclusion:</b> Both buccal midazolam and intranasal sedation were effective in the management of uncooperative children during dental treatment at 85% and 80%, respectively. <b>Trial Registration:</b> Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12624000945527.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13947,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"2025 \",\"pages\":\"4269519\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11932745/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/ijod/4269519\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/ijod/4269519","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:行为管理方法并不总是足够的,有必要采用药物管理方法。本研究的目的是比较口腔镇静与鼻内镇静在不合作儿童牙科治疗中的效果。材料与方法:采用随机单盲对照临床研究,将40例3 ~ 6岁儿童随机分为A组鼻用咪达唑仑和B组口腔用咪达唑仑。比较两组患者镇静起效时间和镇静恢复时间,并采用Houpt行为量表评价镇静效果。采用独立学生T检验、Mann-Whitney U检验、Wilcoxon检验和卡方检验。结果:两组患者起效时间(p=0.458)和镇静恢复时间(p=0.148)差异无统计学意义。两组在睡眠、哭泣和运动类别上差异无统计学意义(p=0.747)、(p=0.183)、(p=0.732),在Houpt量表上差异无统计学意义(p=0.393),鼻内组在睡眠变量上差异有统计学意义(p=0.014),口腔组在运动变量上差异有统计学意义(p=0.039)。结论:口腔咪达唑仑和鼻内镇静治疗不配合患儿的有效率分别为85%和80%。试验注册:澳大利亚新西兰临床试验注册:ACTRN12624000945527。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of the Efficacy of Buccal Midazolam in Comparison With Intranasal Midazolam Sedation in Uncooperative Children During Dental Treatment.

Aim: Behavioral management techniques are not always sufficient, and then it is necessary to use pharmacological management methods. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of buccal midazolam sedation with intranasal midazolam in non-cooperative children during dental treatment. Materials and Methods: A randomized single blinded comparative clinical study consisted of 40 children aged 3-6 years who were divided randomly into two groups: Group A intranasal midazolam and Group B buccal midazolam. The onset time of action and recovery time from sedation were compared between the two groups, and the efficacy of sedation was evaluated by Houpt behavior scale. The independent student's T test, Mann-Whitney U test, the Wilcoxon test and the Chi-square test were used. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the onset time of action (p=0.458) and recovery time from sedation (p=0.148). There were no statically significant differences between the two groups in sleeping, crying, and movement categories (p=0.747), (p=0.183), (p=0.732), respectively, or in the overall Houpt scale (p=0.393), there were statistically significant differences in the sleep variable between the two studied phases in the intranasal group (p=0.014) and in the movement variable in the buccal group (p=0.039). Conclusion: Both buccal midazolam and intranasal sedation were effective in the management of uncooperative children during dental treatment at 85% and 80%, respectively. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12624000945527.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Dentistry
International Journal of Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
219
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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