Article Data

  • Views 2562
  • Dowloads 225

Original Research

Open Access

Deep Sedation for Pediatric Dental Procedures: Is this a Safe and Effective Option?

  • Sheikh Sohail Ahmed1,*,
  • Shawn R Hicks1
  • James E Slaven2
  • Mara E Nitu1

1Section of Pediatric Critical Care, Riley Hospital for Children at IU Health, Indiana University School of Medicine

2Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine

DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.2.156 Vol.40,Issue 2,March 2016 pp.156-160

Published: 01 March 2016

*Corresponding Author(s): Sheikh Sohail Ahmed E-mail: ssahmed@iupui.edu

PDF (345.77 kB) View Full-text

Abstract

Objective: Sedation may be needed for safe, effective completion of pediatric dental procedures. Procedural sedation is performed in a children's hospital based dental office. The three sedation approaches: a propofolonly (P-O) approach (2–3mg/kg titrated to the needed level of sedation), an approach that includes either IV ketamine (K+P) (0.25 or 0.5mg/kg) or IV fentanyl (F+P) (0.5–1mcg/kg) prior to propofol administration. We sought to determine safety and efficacy of various propofol based sedation protocols. Study Design: Retrospective review of 222 patients receiving a propofol-only (P-O), ketamine+propofol (K+P) or fentanyl+propofol (F+P) approach. Results: There were 44 patients in P-O group, 154 in K+P group and 24 in F+P group with mean age (4.8±3.4y) and mean weight (19.7±6.7kg). All the patients completed procedures successfully. Mild hypoxemia occurred in 24% of cases and resolved with nasal cannula. Mean total dose of propofol was similar in all groups (P-O 8.2mg/kg, K+P 9.5mg/kg, F+P 9.6mg/kg, p=0.15). Although procedure and recovery times were similar in all groups, discharge times in K+P group were significantly shorter than P-O group and F+P group respectively (K+P 9.35±8.93.min, P-O 13.57±10.42min, F+P 10.42±4.40 p= 0.002). Conclusion: Sedation can be accomplished safely and effectively in a children's hospital based dental office using propofol-based sedation.

Keywords

Pediatric dental sedation ,Propofol, Financial Implications.

Cite and Share

Sheikh Sohail Ahmed, Shawn R Hicks, James E Slaven, Mara E Nitu. Deep Sedation for Pediatric Dental Procedures: Is this a Safe and Effective Option? Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2016; 40(2): 156-160. doi: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.2.156

References

1. Morley KR, Milnes A. Pediatric patients in dental practices: behavior management for the 1990s. Ont Dent; 69(8):35, 36, 39. 1992.

2. Patel KN, Simon HK, Stockwell CA, et al. Pediatric procedural seda-tion by a dedicated nonanesthesiology pediatric sedation service using propofol. Pediatr Emerg Care; 25(3): 133-8. 2009.

3. Nathan JE. Managing the behavior of precooperative children. Dent Clin North Am; 39(4):789-816. 1995.

4. Cote CJ, Wilson, S. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pedi-atric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: an update. Pediatrics; 118:2587-2602. 2006.

5. Mason KP, Zurakowski D, Zgleszewski SE, et al. High dose dexmedeto-midine as the sole sedative for pediatric MRI. Paeditric Anaesth;18:403-

411. 2008.

6. Mathers LH, Frankel LR: Pediatric emergencies and resuscitation. In: Kliegman RM, Behrman RE, Jenson HB, Stanton BF, eds. Nelson Text-book of Pediatrics, 18th edn. Philadelphia, Elsevier, 2007

7. Sidney B. Finn. Clinical Pedodontics; 4th ed, 114. 1991.

8. Worthington LM, Flyn PJ, Strunin. Death in the dental chair: Unavoid-able catastrophe? Br J Anaesth; 80:131-132. 1998.

9. Langley MS, Heel RC. Propofol: a review of its pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetic properties and use as an intravenous anaesthetic. Drugs; 35:334-372. 1988.

10. Hug CC Jr, McLeskey CH, Narhwold ML, et al. Hemodynamic effects of propofol: data from over 25,000 patients. Anesth Analg;77:S21-29. 1993.

11. Jayabose S, Levendoglu-Tungal O, Giamelli J, et al. Intravenous anes-thesia with propofol for painful procedures in children with cancer. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol; 23:290-293. 2001.

12. Eltisur Y, Blankenship P, Lawrence A. Propofol sedation for endoscopic procedures in children. Endoscopy; 32:788-791. 2000.

13. Yagiela JA. Making patients safe and comfortable for a lifetime of dentistry: frontiers in office-based sedation. J Dent Educ; 65:1348-1356. 2001.

14. Loh G, Dalen D. Low-dose ketamine in addition to propofol for proce-dural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department. Ann Pharma-cother; 41:485-92. 2007.

15. Miner JR, Krauss B. Procedural sedation and analgesia research: state of the art. Acad Emerg Med; 14:170-8. 2007.

16. Kohrs R, Durieux MD. Ketamine: teaching an old drug new tricks. Anesth Analg; 87:1186-93. 1998.

17. William EV, Andolfatto G. A prospective evaluation of “Ketofol” (ketamine/propofol combination) for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med; 49:23-30. 2007.

18. Miner JR, Burton JH. Clinical practice advisory: emergency department procedural sedation with propofol. Ann Emerg Med; 50:182-7. 2007.

19. Gottschalk A, Smith DS. New concepts in acute pain therapy: preemptive analgesia. Am Fam Phys; 63:1979-86. 2001.

20. Tverskoy M, Oz Y, Isakson A, et al. Preemptive effect of fentanyl and ketamine on postoperative pain and wound hyperalgesia; 78:205-9. 1994.

21. Kavitha R, Amitha HH, Kukul G. Sedation in uncooperative children undergoing dental procedures: a comparative evaluation of midazolam, propofol, and ketamine. T Clin Ped Dent;:32(1);1-4.2007.

22. Newson C, Joshi GP, Victory R, et al. Comparison of propofol adminis-tration techniques for sedation during monitored anesthesia care. Anesth Analg; 81:486-491. 1995.

23. Burton JH, Harrah JD, Germann CA, Dillon DC. Does end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring detect respiratory events prior to current sedation monitoring practices? Acad Emerg Med; 13:500-4. 2006.

24. Burton JH, Bock AJ, Strout TD, et al. Etomidate and midazolam for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med; 40:496-504. 2002.

25. Deitch K, Chudnofsky CR, Dominici P. The utility of supplemental oxygen during emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia with midazolam and fentanyl: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 8; 49:1-8. 2007.

26. Miner JR, Birow M, Krieg S, et al. Randomized clinical trial of propofol versus methohexital for procedural sedation during fracture and disloca-tion reduction in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med; 10:931-7. 2003.

27. Messenger DW, Sivilotti ML, van Vlymen J, et al. Which alarms first during procedural sedation: the pulse oximeter or the capnograph? Can J Emerg; Med 9:186. 2007.

28. Campbell RL, Ross GA, Campbell JR, et al. Comparison of oral chloral hydrate with intramuscular ketamine, mepridine, and promethazine for pediatric sedation – preliminary report. Anesth Prog Spring; 45(2):46-50. 1998.

29. Miner JR, Bachman A, Kosman L, Teng B, et al. Assessment of the onset and persistence of amnesia during procedural sedation with propofol. Acad Emerg Med; 12:491-6. 2005.

JOCPD Volume 50 Issue 5 cover
Current Issue

Vol.50, Issue 5, 03 September 2026

Table of contents
All Issues

Submission Turnaround Time

Top