Article Data

  • Views 607
  • Dowloads 149

Original Research

Open Access

Comparison of Oral Midazolam and Triclofos in Conscious Sedation of Uncooperative Children

  • Shabbir A1
  • Bhat SS2,*,
  • Sundeep Hegde K2
  • Salman M3

1Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Yenepoya Dental College, Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka

2Dept of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry,Yenepoya Dental College, Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka

3Dept of Anaesthesiology, Yenepoya Medical College, Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.36.2.0346178414pvw865 Vol.36,Issue 2,March 2012 pp.189-196

Published: 01 March 2012

*Corresponding Author(s): Bhat SS E-mail:


Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of two orally administered conscious sedation agents, Triclofos 70mg/kg and Midazolam 0.5mg/kg in pediatric dental patients. Study Design: In this cross over study twenty four sedation sessions were carried out with twelve children between the age group of 3 to 9 years. Children exhibiting negative behavior according to Frankl behavior rating scale (Rating No.2) were selected. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral midazolam 0.5mg/kg or triclofos 70mg/kg. The alternate drug was administered at the next appointment. Patients' behavioral responses were recorded using a scoring system established by Houpt et al and modified by Badalaty et al considering the degree of sleep, body movement, crying and overall behavior. Scoring was done for both midazolam and triclofos session as well as for the session which was tried without medication. Ratings were made during all the procedures like injection of LA, extraction, cavity preparation, restoration and pulp therapy. Statistical analysis was done using Friedman test and Wilcoxon sign rank test. Results: Both the drugs showed significantly higher scores when compared to the session which was tried without medication although the scores for midazolam were significantly higher than triclofos. Conclusion: Oral midazolam in a dose of 0.5mg/kg is more effective in regulating patient behavior when compared to triclofos.


Conscious sedation, Midazolam, Triclofos, Dental treatment

Cite and Share

Shabbir A,Bhat SS,Sundeep Hegde K,Salman M. Comparison of Oral Midazolam and Triclofos in Conscious Sedation of Uncooperative Children. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2012. 36(2);189-196.


1. McDonald,  Avery  and  Dean.  Pharmacologic  management  of  patient behavior. 1983, Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent; Eighth edition.

2. Badalaty MM, Houpt MI, Koenigsberg SR, Maxwell KC, DesJardins PJ. A comparison of chloral hydrate and diazepam sedation in young children. Pediatr Dent, 12:33–7, 1990.

3. McCann W, Wilson S, Larsen P, Stehle B. The effects of nitrous oxide on  behavior  and  physiological  parameters  during  conscious  sedation with a moderate dose of chloral hydrate and hydroxyzine. Pediatr Dent, 18: 35–41, 1996.

4. Reeves ST, Wiedenfeld KR, Wrobleski J, Hardin CL, Pinosky ML. A randomized  double-blind  trial  of  chloral  hydrate/hydrazine  versus midazolam/acetaminophen  in  the  sedation  of  pediatric  dental  outpa-tients. ASDC J Dent Child, 63: 95–100, 1996.

5. Wilson S, Easton J, Lamb K, Orchardson R, Casamassimo P. A retro-spective study of chloral hydrate, meperidine, hydroxyzine and mida-zolam regimens used to sedate children for dental care. Pediatr Dent, 22: 107–12, 2000.

6. Jensen B, Matsson L. Benzodiazepines in child dental care: A survey of its use among general practitioners and paediatric dentists in Sweden. Swed Dent J, 25: 31–8, 2001.

7. Myers GR, Maestrello CL, Mourino AP, Best AM. Effect of submu-cosal  midazolam  on  behavior  and  physiologic  response  when  com-bined  with  oral  chloral  hydrate  and  nitrous  oxide  sedation.  Pediatr Dent, 26: 37–43, 2004.

8. Cote CJ. Sedation for the pediatric patient. A review. Pediatr Clin North Am, 41: 31–58, 1994.

9. Zathan JE. Managing behavior of pre-cooperative children. Dent Clin North Am, 39: 789–816, 1995.

10. 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.

11. Milnes AR, Maupome G, Cannon J. Intravenous sedation in pediatric dentistry using midazolam, nalbupine and droperidol. Pediatr Dent, 22: 113–9, 2000.

12. Holroyd SV, Wynn RJ, Requa-Clark B. Clinical pharmacology in den-tal practice, 4th ed. St. Louis, Mo. Mosby Saunders, 81–103, 1988.

13. Malinovsky JM, Populaire C, Lepage JY, Lejus C, Pinaud M. Premed-ication with midazolam in children: effect of intranasal, rectal and oral routes on plasma midazolam concentration. Anesthesia, 50: 351–354, 1995.

14. Lejus  C,  Renaudin  C,  Testa  S,  Malinorsk  JM,  Vigier  T,  Souron  R. Midazolam for premedication in children using intranasal midazolam. Anesthesiology, 69: 972–975, 1988.

15. David J. Steward: Preoperative evaluation and preparation for surgery. Paediatric Anaesthesia. George A Gregory, Churchill Livingstone, 4th edition, p. 188, 2002.

16. Frankl SN, Shiere FR, Fogels HR: Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory? J Dent Children, 29: 150–163, 1962.

17. Houpt M. Project USAP the use of sedative agents in pediatric den-tistry: 1991 update. Pediatr Dent, 15: 36–40, 1993.

18. Committee on Drugs. American Academy of Pediatrics. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after seda-tion for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: addendum. Pediatrics, 110: 836–8, 2002.

19. Radis FG. Wilson S, Griffen AL, Coury DL. Temperament as a predic-tor of behaviour during initial dental examination in children. Pediatr Dent, 16: 121–7, 1994.

20. S Neerja , RK Pandey , AK Saksena , JN Jaiswal. A comparative eval-uation of oral midazolam with other sedatives as premedication in pedi-atric dentistry. J Clin Pediatr Dent,  26(2): 161–4, 2002.

21. Kanto J, Sjdvall S, Vuori A: Effect of different kinds of premedication on the induction properties of midazolam, Br J Anaesth, 54: 507–511, 1982.

22. Wilton NCT, Leigh J, Pandit UA. Preanesthetic sedation of preschool children  using  intranasal  midazolam.  Anesthesiology,  69:  972–975, 1988.

23. Payne K, Mattheyse FJ, Liebenberg D, Dawes T. Pharmacokinetics of midazolam in pediatric patients, Eur J Clin Pharmacol, 37: 267–272, 1989.

24. Boyd JD, Manford ML: Premedication in children. A controlled trial of oral triclofos and diazepam. Br. J Anaesth, 45: 501–6, 1973.

25. Saarnivaara  L,  Lindgren  L,  Klemola  UM.  Comparison  of  chloral hydrate and midazolam by mouth as premedicants in children under-going otolaryngological surgery. Br J Anaesth, 61(4): 390–6, 1988.

26. Davies FC, Waters M. Oral midazolam for conscious sedation of chil-dren  during  minor  procedures.  J  Accident  Emerg  Med,  15:  244–8, 1998.

27. Talksdorf W, Bremerich D, Nordmeyer U. Midazolam for premedica-tion  of  infants:  A  comparison  of  the  effect  between  oral  and  rectal administration.  Anaesthesie  Intensivtherapie  Notfallmedizin,  24: 355–61, 1989.

28. Kil N, Zhu JF, vanwagnen C, Abdulhamid I The effects of midazolam on pediatric patients with asthma. Pediatr Dent, 25(2): 137–42, 2003.

29. Pisalchaiyong T, Trairatvorakul  C,  Jirakijja  J, Yuktarnonda W.  Com-parison of the effectiveness of oral diazepam and midazolam for the sedation of autistic patients during dental treatment. Pediatr Dent, May-Jun, 27(3): 198–206, 2005.

30. Hani Eid. Conscious sedation in the 21st century. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 26(2): 179–180, 2002.

31. Lima  AR,  da  Costa  LR,  da  Costa  PS.A  randomized,  controlled, crossover trial of oral midazolam and hydroxyzine for pediatric dental sedation. Pesqui Odontol Bras, Jul–Sep, 17(3): 206–11, 2003.

32. Musial KM, Wilson S, Preisch J, Weaver J. Comparison of the efficacy of oral midazolam alone versus midazolam and meperidine in the pedi-atric dental patient. Pediatr Dent, 25(5): 468–74, 2003.

33. Uldum,  Birgitte;  Hallonsten, Anna-Lena;  Poulsen,  Sven.  Midazolam conscious sedation in a large Danish municipal dental service for chil-dren and adolescents. Int J Paedi Dent, 18: 256–261, 2008.

34. Van Eugelen BG, Gimbrere JS, Booy IH. Benzodiazepine withdrawal reactions  in  two  children  following  discontinuation  of  sedation  with midazolam. Annals Pharmacotherapy, 27: 579–81, 1993.

35. Orwin JM, Schroeder JD. Safety of chloral. Br. Med J, 3: 187, 1968.

36. Reves JG, Fragen RJ, Vinik R, Greenbalt DJ: Midazolam: Pharmacol-ogy and uses. Anesthesiology, 62: 310, 1985.

37. Sievers TD, Yee JD, Foley ME, Blanding PJ, Berde CB. Midazolam for conscious sedation during pediatric oncology procedures: Safety and recovery parameters. Pediatrics, 88: 1172–1179, 1991.

38. Kupietzky A, Houpt M. Midazolam: A review of its use for conscious sedation in children. Pediatr Dent, 15: 237–241, 1993.

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.

PubMed (MEDLINE) PubMed comprises more than 35 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.

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