Title
Author
DOI
Article Type
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Comparison of Three Conscious Sedation Regimens for Pediatric Dental Patients
1Pediatric Dentistry Posgraduate Program, Facultad de Estomatología, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico
*Corresponding Author(s): Amaury de J. Pozos-Guillén E-mail: apozos@uaslp.mx
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical success of three conscious sedation regimens for pediatric dental patients. A clinical trial was performed wherein dental treatment was administered to pediatric patients ASA I and II under conscious sedation.. Fifty-four children were divided into three groups of 18 patients each, randomly assigned. Group A received hydroxyzine (2mg/kg 2 h before treatment and a subsequent dose of 1 mg/kg 20 min before treatment) orally; group B received 0.50mg/kg midazolam mixed with 1.5 mg/kg hydroxyzine 20 min before treatment orally; group C received chloral hydrate, 50 mg/kg mixed with 1.5mg/kg hydroxyzine 20 min before treatment orally. The Ohio State Behavioral Rating Scale (OSBRS) showed statistically significant differences between groups B and C with respect to group A. The regimens of midazolam or chloral hydrate mixed with hydroxyzine represent excellent choices for conscious sedation regimens for pediatric dental patients.
conscious sedation, hydroxyzine, midazolam, chloral hydrate
Javier Torres-Pérez,Israel Tapia-García,Miguel Ángel Rosales-Berber,Juan Francisco Hernández- Sierra,Amaury de J. Pozos-Guillén. Comparison of Three Conscious Sedation Regimens for Pediatric Dental Patients. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2007. 31(3);183-186.
1. Primosch RE, Bender F. Factors associated with administration route when using midazolam for pediatric conscious sedation. J Dent Child 4:233-8,2001.
2. Musial KM, Wilson S, Preisch J, Weaver J. Comparison of the efficacy of oral midazolam alone versus midazolam and meperidine in pediatric dental patient. Pediatr Dent 25:468-73,2003.
3. Kupietzky A, Blumenstyk A. Comparing the behavior of children treat-ed using general anesthesia with those treated using conscious sedation. J Dent Child 24:122-7,1998.
4. Chowdhury J, Vargas KG. Comparison of chloral hydrate, meperidine and hydroxyzine to midazolam regimens for oral sedation of pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 27:191-7,2005.
5. Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T, Tait AR. Adverse events and risk factors associated with the sedation of children by nonanesthesiologists. Anesth Analg 85:1207-13,1997.
6. Mathewson RJ, Primosch RE, Robertson JD. Fundamentals of Pediatric Dentistry. 3rd ed. Chicago, Quintessence145,1995.
7. American Society of Anesthesiologist. Sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologysts. Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology 84:68-73,1996.
8. Singh N, Pandey RK, Saksena AK, Jaiswal JN. A comparative evalua -tion of oral midazolam with other sedatives as premedication in pedi-atric dentistry. J Clinic Pediatr Dent 26:161-4,2002.
9. Coté CJ, Todres D, Goudsouzian NG, Ryan JF. A Practice of anesthe-sia for infants and children. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, WB Saunders 584-609,2001.
10. Malamed SF. Sedacion Guia Practica. 3rd ed. St.Louis, CV Mosby 16,1996.
11. Eid H. Conscious sedation in the 21st century. J Clinic Pediatr Dent 26:179-80,2002.
12. Cathers JW, Wilson CFG, Webb MD, Alvarez MED, Schiffman T, Taylor S. A comparison of two meperidine/hidroxyzine sedation regi mens for the uncooperative pediatric dental patient. Pediatr Dent
27:5:395-400,2005.
13. Primosch RE, Guelmann M. Comparison of drops versus spray admin-istration of intranasal midazolam in two- and three-year-old children for dental sedation. Pediatr Dent 27:5:401-8,2005.
14. Coté CJ. Discharge criteria for children sedated by nonanesthesiolo-gists. Is “safe” really safe enough? Anesthesiology 100:2-6,2004.
15. Newman D, Azer M, Pitetti R. When is a patient safe for discharge after procedural sedation? The timing of adverse effect events in 1367 pedi-atric procedural sedations. Emerg Med Clin North Am 42:1-14,2003.
16. Avalos-Arenas V, Moyao-Garcia D, Nava-Ocampo AA, Zayas-Carranza RE, Fragoso-Rios R. Is chloral hydrate/hydroxyzine a good option for paediatric dental outpatient sedation? Curr Med Res Op 14:219-26,1998.
17. Pitetti RD, Singh S, Pierce MC. Safe and efficacious use of procedural sedation and analgesia by nonanesthesiologists in a pediatric emergency department. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 157:1090-6,2003.
18. Rodriguez E, Jordan R. Contemporary trends in pediatric sedation and analgesia. Emerg Med Clin North Am 20:1-13,2002.
19. Coté CJ, Karl HW, Notterman DA, Weinberg JA, McCloskey C. Adverse sedation events in pediatrics: Analysis of medications used for sedation. Pediatrics 106:633-44,2000.
20. Krauss B, Green SM. Sedation and analgesia for procedures in children. N Engl J Med 342:938-45,2000.
21. Fishbaugh DF, Wilson S, Preisch JW, Weaver II JM. Relationship of tonsil size on an airway blockage maneuver in children during sedation. Pediatr Dent 19:277-81,1997.
22. Rohlfing GK, Dilley DC, Lucas WJ, Vann WF. The effect of supple-mental oxygen on apnea and oxygen saturation during pediatric con scious sedation. Pediatr Dent 20:8-16,1998.
23. Girdler NM, Grieveson B. The emergency drug box-time for action? Br Dent J 187:77-8,1999.
24. Myers GR, Maestrello CL, Mourino AP, Best AM. Effect of submucos-al midazolam on behavior and physiologic response when combined with oral chloral hydrate and nitrous oxide sedation. Pediatr Dent 26:37-43,2004.
25. Loyola-Rodriguez JP, Aguilera-Morelos AA, Santos-Diaz MA, Zavala-Alonso V, Davila-Perez C, Olvera-Delgado O, Patiño-Marin N, De Leona-Cobian I. Oral rehabilitation under dental general anesthesia, conscious sedation, and convencional techniques in patients affected by cerebral palsy. J Clinic Pediatr Dent 28:279-84,2004.
26. Berde CB, Sethna N F. Analgesics for the treatment of pain in children. N Engl J Med 347:1094-101,2002.
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 1.8 (2023) 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.
Top