Article Data

  • Views 742
  • Dowloads 165

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

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.

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.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top