Ustün Yakup, Gündüz Murat, Erdoğan Ozgür, Benlidayi M Emre
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Sep;64(9):1353-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.05.020.
The aim of this study was to compare the use of dexmedetomidine with the use of midazolam during intravenous conscious sedation in third molar surgery.
Twenty healthy patients with symmetrically impacted mandibular third molars were included in this double-blind, crossover, randomized study. Either dexmedetomidine (group D) (4 microg.kg(-1).h(-1)) or midazolam (group M) (0.4 mg.kg(-1).h(-1)) was administered intravenously for 15 minutes before the first operation. At the second operation, the other agent was applied. Cardiorespiratory data were collected. The intraoperative sedation level, patient cooperation, and postoperative performance were scored and any pain reaction during the local anesthetic injection was recorded. Visual analog scales were additionally used for the subjective assessment of pain and patient satisfaction. Amnesia was evaluated by the patients' ability to recall the objects shown during the operations and the local anesthetic injection. Patients' preferences were recorded during the interview at the end of the second operations.
The mean heart rate and blood pressure measurements were significantly lower in group D. There was no significant difference in the respiratory findings. A significantly higher number of patients showed pain reactions in group M. Sedation level, postoperative performance, and VAS pain scores were not statistically significant, whereas the differences in cooperation score and VAS for patient satisfaction were significant. Adequate amnesia was obtained in group M, however, no amnesia was demonstrated in group D. Sixty-five percent of the patients indicated a preference for dexmedetomidine sedation.
Dexmedetomidine may be a remarkable alternative to midazolam for intravenous sedation because it seems to be a reliable and safe method, with additional analgesic effect providing a satisfactory sedation level without any serious side effects during impacted third molar surgery.
本研究旨在比较右美托咪定与咪达唑仑在第三磨牙手术静脉清醒镇静中的应用。
本双盲、交叉、随机研究纳入了20例双侧下颌第三磨牙对称阻生的健康患者。在首次手术前15分钟静脉给予右美托咪定(D组)(4微克·千克⁻¹·小时⁻¹)或咪达唑仑(M组)(0.4毫克·千克⁻¹·小时⁻¹)。在第二次手术时,应用另一种药物。收集心肺数据。对术中镇静水平、患者配合度和术后表现进行评分,并记录局部麻醉注射期间的任何疼痛反应。另外使用视觉模拟量表对疼痛和患者满意度进行主观评估。通过患者回忆手术和局部麻醉注射期间所展示物体的能力来评估遗忘效果。在第二次手术结束时的访谈中记录患者的偏好。
D组的平均心率和血压测量值显著更低。呼吸指标无显著差异。M组有更多患者出现疼痛反应。镇静水平、术后表现和视觉模拟量表疼痛评分无统计学显著差异,而配合度评分和视觉模拟量表患者满意度评分的差异显著。M组获得了充分的遗忘效果,然而,D组未显示出遗忘效果。65%的患者表示更倾向于右美托咪定镇静。
右美托咪定可能是咪达唑仑用于静脉镇静的一个显著替代药物,因为它似乎是一种可靠且安全的方法,具有额外的镇痛作用,在阻生第三磨牙手术期间能提供令人满意的镇静水平且无任何严重副作用。