Conscious sedation by Midazolam in pediatric odontology: A randomized clinical trial

Maria Mtalsi; Fatima Ezzahra Elgasmi; Amal Chlyah; Badreddine Hmamouchi; Samira Elarabi

doi:10.30574/gscbps.2021.14.2.0056

Authors

Maria Mtalsi Department of Pediatric Odontology, Dental Medicine Faculty, Hassan II University, Casablanca, 21100 Morocco.
Fatima Ezzahra Elgasmi Department of Pediatric Odontology, Dental Medicine Faculty, Hassan II University, Casablanca, 21100 Morocco.
Amal Chlyah Department of Pediatric Odontology, Dental Medicine Faculty, Hassan II University, Casablanca, 21100 Morocco.
Badreddine Hmamouchi Pediatric Resuscitation, Private Practice.
Samira Elarabi Department of Pediatric Odontology, Dental Medicine Faculty, Hassan II University, Casablanca, 21100 Morocco.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30574/gscbps.2021.14.2.0056

Keywords:

Conscious sedation, Midazolam, Oral, Intranasal, Rectal, Child, Dentistry

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study are to evaluate the efficacy of midazolam as a means of conscious sedation in pediatric odontology through three routes of administration: oral, rectal and nasal administration, to compare the efficacy of these different routes and to assess the general safety of Midazolam.

Materials and Methods: Thirty healthy non-cooperating (ASAI) patients (levels 1 and 2 on the FRANKL scale), aged 2 to 5 years and requiring a minimum of three dental sessions were recruited. Each patient received three sessions of sedation, using a different route of administration each time: oral (0.5 mg/kg), rectal (0.3 mg/kg) and nasal (0.2 mg/kg). The assessment of the behavior throughout the dental care was made using the Houpt scale. Physiological parameters(heart rate and oxygen saturation) were measured every five minutes to assess tolerance.

Results: The three routes of administration of midazolam were considered effective since all patients presented a behavior allowing a complete management without interruption of care except for one patient. The sedative effect of the oral and rectal routes was similar, as to the nasal route, it was judged to be clinically better but without any statistically significant differences. The most accepted route of administration by patients was the oral one followed by the nasal and rectal routes. No intolerance to midazolam was observed.

Conclusion: Midazolam is an effective sedative for dental care, acceptable by patients and well tolerated regardless of the route of administration.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Delcommune R. La phobie du chirurgien dentiste. Rev Odontostomatol (Paris). 1990;19(5):393-399.

Boridy M, Charland R, Bourassa M. Fear of children at the dental office. A pain that isn't without remedy. J Dent Que. 1991; 28:265-270.

Berthet A, Droz D, Manière MC, Naulin-Ifi C, Tardieu C, Le Traitement de la Douleur et de L’Anxiété: Chez L’Enfant. Quintssence International, Paris. 2006.

Bolon M, Boulieu R, Flamens C, Paulus S, Bastien O. Sedation induced by midazolam in intensive care: pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic aspects. Ann FrAnesthReanim. 2002;21(6):478-492.

Hartgraves PM, Primosch RE. An evaluation of oral and nasal midazolam for pediatric dental sedation. ASDC J Dent Child. 1994;61(3):175-181.

Jensen B, Matsson L. Oral versus rectal midazolam as a pre-anaesthetic sedative in children receiving dental treatment under general anaesthesia. ActaPaediatr. 2002;91(8):920-925.

Fukuta O, Braham RL, Yanase H, Kurosu K. Intranasal administration of midazolam: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and sedative potential. ASDC J Dent Child. 1997;64(2):89-98.

Aydintug YS, Okcu KM, Guner Y, Gunaydin Y, Sencimen M. Evaluation of oral or rectal midazolam as conscious sedation for pediatric patients in oral surgery. Mil Med. 2004;169(4):270-273.

American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Behavior guidance for the pediatric dental patient. The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry. Chicago, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry; 2020:292-310.

Kogan A, Katz J, Efrat R, Eidelman LA. Premedication with midazolam in young children: A comparison of four routes of administration. PaediatrAnaesth 2002;12(8):685-689.

Chhibber AK, Fickling K, Lustik SJ. Pre-anesthetic midazolam: A randomized trial with three different routes of administration. J Anesthe Clinic Res. 2011;2:118.

Tolksdorf W, Eick C. Rectal.oral and nasal premedication using midazolam in children aged 1-6 years. A comparative clinical study. Anaesthesist. 1991;40(12):661-667.

Lourenço-Matharu L, Roberts GJ. Oral sedation for dental treatment in young children in a hospital setting. Br Dent J. 2010; 209(7).

Gilchrist F, Cairns AM, Leitch JA. The use of intranasal midazolam in the treatment of paediatric dental patients. Anaesthesia 2007;62(12):1262-1265

AlSarheed MA. Intranasal sedatives in pediatric dentistry. Saudi Med J. 2016;37(9):948-956.

Lindh-Strömberg U. Rectal administration of midazolam for conscious sedation of uncooperative children in need of dental treatment. Swed Dent J. 2001;25(3):105-111.

Hosey MT, Blinkhorn AS. An evaluation of four methods of assessing the behaviour of anxious child dental patients. Int J Paediatr Dent. 1995;5(2): 87-95.

Lee-Kim SJ, Fadavi S, Punwani I, Koerber A. Nasal versus oral midazolam sedation for pediatric dental patients. J Dent Child (Chic). 2004;71(2):126-130.

Kaviani N, Shahtusi M, Haj NorousaliTehrani M, Nazari S. Effect of oral midazolam premedication on children's co-operation before general anesthesia in pediatric dentistry. J Dent (Shiraz). 2014;15(3):123-128.

Hosey MT. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Pediatric Dentistry. Managing anxious children: The use of conscious sedation in paediatric dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2002;12(5):359-372.

Feld LH, Negus JB, White PF. Oral midazolam preanesthetic medication in pediatric outpatients. Anesthesiology. 1990 Nov;73(5):831-4.

Uldum B, Hallonsten AL, Poulsen S. Midazolam conscious sedation in a large Danish municipal dental service for children and adolescents. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18(4):256-261.

Tolksdorf W, Eick C. Rectal, oral and nasal premedication using midazolam in children aged 1-6 years. A comparative clinical study. Anaesthesist. 1991;40(12):661-667.

Corcuera-Flores JR, Silvestre-Rangil J, Cutando-Soriano A, López-Jiménez J. Current methods of sedation in dental patients - A systematic review of the literature. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016;21(5):e579-e586.

al-Rakaf H, Bello LL, Turkustani A, Adenubi JO. Intra-nasal midazolam in conscious sedation of young paediatric dental patients. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2001;11(1):33-40.

Dallman JA, Ignelzi MA Jr, Briskie DM. Comparing the safety, efficacy and recovery of intranasal midazolam vs. oral chloral hydrate and promethazine. Pediatr Dent. 2001;23(5):424-430.

Jensen B, Schröder U, Månsson U. Rectal sedation with diazepam or midazolam during extractions of traumatized primary incisors: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial in Swedish children aged 1.5-3.5 years. ActaOdontolScand. 1999;57(4):190-194.

Leitch J. Use of oral midazolam in tooth extraction. Br Dent J. 2002;192(8):454.

Hulland SA, Freilich MM, Sàndor GK. Nitrous oxide-oxygen or oral midazolam for pediatric outpatient sedation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod. 2002;93(6):643-646.

Primosch RE, Bender F. Factors associated with administration route when using midazolam for pediatric conscious sedation. ASDC J Dent Child. 2001;68(4):233-228.

Reeves ST, Wiedenfeld KR, Wrobleski J, Hardin CL, Pinosky ML. A randomized double-blind trial of chloral hydrate/hydroxyzine versus midazolam/acetaminophen in the sedation of pediatric dental outpatients. ASDC J Dent Child. 1996;63(2):95-100.

Blumer S, Peretz B, Zisman G, Ratson T. Effect of sedation with midazolam and time to discharge among pediatric dental patients. J ClinPediatr Dent. 2017;41(5):384-387.