Pediatric Dental Sedation Research: Where Do We Stand Today?

Despite the voluminous literature addressing the safety and efficacy of various sedative agents in the pediatric dental setting, the quality literature to form evidence based pediatric dental sedation practice is not available. Our search through PUBMED showed that during 1985–2012, a total of 184 original research papers on pediatric dental sedation were reported, and midazolam clearly dominated with 88 trials on this agent. Despite these large numbers of papers, Cochrane Review was able to pool a weak evidence in favor of midazolam. Data pooling from five heterogeneous high risk of bias trials showed that oral midazolam is associated with more cooperative behavior when compared to a placebo. Further, a very weak evidence regarding efficacy of nitrous oxide was collected from two trials, which could not be pooled. These findings draw attention to the need to address the shortcomings in the current state of pediatric dental sedation research. The present article has been focused on the current status of pediatric dental sedation research, and the limitations in the current research methodology. This paper also suggests recommendations for future research in the field of pediatric dental sedation.

Guidelines, Pediatric dental sedation, Research

1. Weinstein P, Nathan JE. The challenges of fearful and phobic children. Dent Clin North Am 32: 667-92, 1988.

2. Folayan MO, Faponle A, Lamikanra A. A review of the pharmacological approach to the management of dental anxiety in children. Int J Paediatr Dent 12: 347–354, 2002.

3. Lourenço-Matharu L, Ashley PF, Furness S. Sedation of children under-going dental treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 14: CD003877, 2012.

4. Mittal N, Gauba K, Goyal A, Kapur A. Pediatric Dental Sedation Prac-tice: Evolution and Current State-of-The-Art. J Postgrad Med Edu Res 48: 139-47, 2014.

5. Lee-Kim SJ, Fadavi S, Punwani I, Koerber A. Nasal vs oral midazolam sedation for pediatric dental patients. J Dent Child (Chic) 71:126-30, 2004.

6. Johnson E, Briskie D, Majewski R, Edwards S, Reynolds P. The physio-logic and behavioral effects of oral and intranasal midazolam in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 32:229-38, 2010.

7. Papineni A, Lourenco-Matharu L, Ashley PF. Safety of oral midazolam use in paediatric dentistry: a review. Int J Paediatr Dent 24:2-13, 2014

8. Bryson MH , Fulton RB, Faulds D. Propofol an update of its use in anes-thesia and conscious sedation. Drugs 50:513-59, 1995.

9. Goyal A, Mittal N, Mittal P, Gauba K. Bispectral index monitoring: validity and utility in pediatric dentistry. J Clin Ped Dent 38: 366-9, 2014

10. Sammartino M, Volpe B, Sbaraglia F, Garra R, D’Addessi A. Capnog-raphy and the Bispectral Index—Their Role in Pediatric Sedation: A Brief Review. Int J Pediatr 1:1-5, 2010.

11. Mittal NP, Goyal M. Dexmedetomidine: A potential agent for use in procedural dental sedation. Ind J Dent 2013; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ijd.2013.05.005

12. Al Taher WMA, Mansour EE, El Shafei MN. Comparative study between novel sedative drug (dexmedetomidine) versus midazolam-propofol for conscious sedation in pediatric patients undergoing oro-dental proce-dures. Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia 2010; 26: 299-304.

13. Tomoyasu Y, Yasuda T, Maeda S, Higuchi H, Miyawaki T Liposome encapsulated midazolam for oral administration. J Liposome Res 21:166-72; 2011.

14. Koroluk LD. Dental anxiety in adolescents with a history of childhood dental sedation. J Dent Child 67: 200-5, 2000.

15. McComb M. The effect of oral conscious sedation on future behavior and anxiety in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 24: 207-11, 2002.

16. Mittal N, Goyal A, Gauba K, Kapur A, Jain K. A double blind randomized trial of ketofol versus propofol for endodontic treatment of anxious pedi-atric patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent 37: 415-20, 2013

17. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collab-oration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

18. Wright ZG. Non-pharmacological management of children’s behavior. In McDonald ER, Avery RD, Dean AJ, Dentistry for the Child and Adoles-cent. 8th ed. CV Mosby Co, Philadelphia; 33-49, 1987.

19. An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists. Practice Guidelines for Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologist. Anes-thesiology 96:1004–17, 2002.

20. Malwiya S, Lewis TV, Tait A. Adverse events and risk factors associated with the sedation of children by non-anesthesiologist. Anesth Analg 85: 1207-13, 1997.

21. Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD. Randomisation to protect against selec-tion bias in healthcare trials (Cochrane Methodology Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2003.

22. Chalmers 1983. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H. Bias in treat-ment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 309:1358-61, 1983.

23. Schulz 1995. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias. J Am Med Assoc 273:408-12, 1985.

24. Moher 1998. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352:609-13, 1998.

25. Karlowski 1975. Karlowski TR, Chalmers TC, Frenkel LD, Kapikian AZ, Lewis TL, Lynch JM. Ascorbic acid for the common cold: a prophylactic and therapeutic trial. J Am Med Assoc 231:1038-42, 1975.

26. Colditz 1989. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparison of therapy. Stat Med 8:441-54; 1989.

27. Schulz 1995. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias. J Am Med Assoc 273:408-12, 1995.

28. Ramsay M, Savege T, Simpson BRJ, et al. Controlled sedation with alphaxalone/alphadolone. Br Med J 2:656–569, 1974.

29. Houpt M .Project USAP the use of sedative agents in dentistry. Pediatr Dent 15: 36-40, 1993.

30. BIS VISTA™ Monitoring System Operating Manual. Aspect Medical Systems, Inc. Norwood, USA. Available at www.aspectmedical.com

31. Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T, Tait RA, Watcha FM, Sadhasivam S, Friesen RH. Effect of Age and Sedative Agent on the Accuracy of Bispectral Index in Detecting Depth of Sedation in Children. Pediatrics 120: e461-e470, 2007.

32. Anderson JB, Hodkinson B. Are there still limitations for the use of target-controlled infusion in children? Curr Opinion Anaesth 23:356–362, 2010.

33. Leslie K, Clavisi O, Hargrove J. Target-controlled infusion versus manu-ally-controlled infusion of propofol for general anaesthesia or sedation in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3: CD006059, 2008.

34. Swanson ER, Seaberg DC, Mathias S. The use of propofol for sedation in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 3:234–8, 1996.

35. Green SM, Krauss B. Clinical practice guideline for emergency depart-ment ketamine dissociative sedation in children. Ann Emerg Med 44:460–71, 2004.

36. Schulz FK, Altman GD, Mother D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials. Ann Intern Med 152: 1-8, 2010.