Comparative Analysis of Sedative Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam in Pediatric Dental Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
dexmeditomidine
midazolam
pediatric preventive dentistry
sedation
systematic review and meta analysis
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
17
06
2022
accepted:
26
08
2022
entrez:
30
9
2022
pubmed:
1
10
2022
medline:
1
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Children are particularly terrified of having dental treatment. They are physically resistant, frail, and unwilling to cooperate. This severe distress during the pre-operative phase could cause the dentist to have issues with behavior control. Additionally, it may make pediatric dental treatments less effective. In order to reduce anxiety and control behavior in children receiving dental care, sedation is a pharmacological management technique that supports the provision of effective and high-quality dental services. The aim is to compare and evaluate the efficacy of sedative agents like dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric dental practice. A thorough review of the literature was conducted using electronic databases like "MEDLINE, PubMed, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, www.clinicaltrials.gov, conference proceedings abstracts, a bibliography of pertinent references, and manual searches of journals, conferences, and books". There were no restrictions on the language or the date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials were included which compared dexmedetomidine and midazolam in children up to 16 years of age subjected to dental treatment. Information on procedures, participants, interventions, outcome measures, and results were independently extracted by three review writers (TS, SL, and RO). Trial authors were contacted for papers that were confusing or lacking information. The risk of bias was evaluated for each study. We adhered to the Cochrane statistical recommendations. Three trials totaling 229 participants were included. All three studies were rated as having a low risk of bias, with none of them having a high or unclear risk. Meta-analysis was done for the available data for the primary outcomes like sedation level and recovery time. We searched for randomized controlled trials up to Jan 31, 2020. Participants are randomly assigned to an intervention or control group in randomized controlled trial research. While patients in the control group often get a placebo therapy or procedure, those in the interventional group receive the treatment being studied. We found three studies eligible to include in the review. One study evaluated 73 individuals who received general anesthesia for dental treatment. There were 72 and 84 individuals in the second and third investigations, respectively. All the participants of the three studies were divided randomly into two groups and were subjected to dexmedetomidine and midazolam as sedative agents. We gave the evidence an "extremely low certainty" rating. Because there are just three short trials with unusual parameters for comparison, the results are questionable. Overall, the results do not allow us to draw any firm conclusions. Three randomized controlled trials included in this systematic review reported data with varying conclusions; hence we recommend more randomized controlled trials to be conducted on this subject matter.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36176880
doi: 10.7759/cureus.28452
pmc: PMC9510641
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
e28452Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022, Oza et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019 Oct;63(9):1162-1168
pubmed: 31318038
Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2016 Mar 10;8:35-50
pubmed: 27022303
J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2017 Jun;17(2):91-103
pubmed: 28879336
Hippokratia. 2010 Dec;14(Suppl 1):29-37
pubmed: 21487488
Sci Rep. 2017 May 10;7(1):1664
pubmed: 28490770
Indian J Anaesth. 2019 Sep;63(9):754-762
pubmed: 31571689
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Indian J Anaesth. 2012 Sep;56(5):496-501
pubmed: 23293390
Lancet. 2006 Mar 4;367(9512):766-80
pubmed: 16517277
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 20;12(1):e0169525
pubmed: 28107373
Can Oper Room Nurs J. 2007 Dec;25(4):26-7, 29-32, 34
pubmed: 18193725
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Paediatr Anaesth. 2014 Feb;24(2):181-9
pubmed: 24237879
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014 Spring;38(3):255-61
pubmed: 25095322
Acta Inform Med. 2008;16(4):219-25
pubmed: 24109156
F1000Res. 2021 May 19;10:401
pubmed: 34408850
Syst Rev. 2015 Oct 22;4:138
pubmed: 26494010
Can J Respir Ther. 2013 Winter;49(4):21-9
pubmed: 26078599
P T. 2010 Jul;35(7):392-415
pubmed: 20689626
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018 Apr;71(2):103-112
pubmed: 29619782
Pediatr Clin North Am. 2000 Oct;47(5):1159-75
pubmed: 11059354
Res Synth Methods. 2014 Mar;5(1):79-85
pubmed: 26054027
Res Synth Methods. 2020 Jul;11(4):522-534
pubmed: 32362052
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2019 Jun;17(2):131-142
pubmed: 30870267
Res Nurs Health. 2017 Feb;40(1):23-42
pubmed: 27686751
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120