鼻用右美托咪定和鼻用咪达唑仑用于5-8岁儿童粘膜雾化装置镇静的有效性和接受度的比较:一项随机对照临床研究。

Yash Lalwani, Bhavna Dave, Lipsa Shah
{"title":"鼻用右美托咪定和鼻用咪达唑仑用于5-8岁儿童粘膜雾化装置镇静的有效性和接受度的比较:一项随机对照临床研究。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:患者年龄、术前焦虑、牙科需求、与药物管理相关的风险、安全性、父母期望和成本影响药物行为管理的选择。因此,本随机对照临床研究旨在比较5-8岁儿童使用粘膜雾化装置(MAD)鼻用右美托咪定和咪达唑仑镇静的有效性和接受度。方法:将48例有Frankl's II行为的受试者随机分为两组:I组给予咪达唑仑(0.25 mg/kg)鼻内治疗,II组给予右美托咪定(1.5µg/kg)鼻内治疗。评估的主要结果是药物接受度、镇静的开始和有效性以及治疗前后的焦虑水平。对治疗前后的次要措施也进行了评价。结果:右美托咪定鼻内用药接受度显著提高(P < 0.001)。咪达唑仑比右美托咪定起效更快,但疗效较差(P < 0.001)。此外,右美托咪定表现出比咪达唑仑更好的抗焦虑特性(P < 0.001)。结论:与咪达唑仑相比,右美托咪定在5 ~ 8岁儿童中接受度更高,治疗效果更好,抗焦虑性能更优。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
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
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