Clermont Université, Université d'Auvergne, EA4847, Centre de Recherche en Odontologie Clinique, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 5;8(8):e71240. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071240. Print 2013.
The use of midazolam for dental care in patients with intellectual disability is poorly documented. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of conscious sedation procedures using intravenous midazolam in adults and children with intellectual disability (ID) compared to dentally anxious patients (DA). Ninety-eight patients with ID and 44 patients with DA programmed for intravenous midazolam participated in the study over 187 and 133 sessions, respectively. Evaluation criteria were success of dental treatment, cooperation level (modified Venham scale), and occurrence of adverse effects. The mean intravenous dose administered was 8.8±4.9 mg and 9.8±4.1 mg in ID and DA sessions respectively (t-test, NS). 50% N₂O/O₂ was administered during cannulation in 51% of ID sessions and 61% of DA sessions (NS, Fisher exact test). Oral or rectal midazolam premedication was administered for cannulation in 31% of ID sessions and 3% of DA sessions (p<0,001, Fisher exact test). Dental treatment was successful in 9 out of 10 sessions for both groups. Minor adverse effects occurred in 16.6% and 6.8% of ID and DA sessions respectively (p = 0.01, Fisher exact test). Patients with ID were more often very disturbed during cannulation (25.4% ID vs. 3.9% DA sessions) and were less often relaxed after induction (58.9% ID vs. 90.3% DA) and during dental treatment (39.5% ID vs. 59.7% DA) (p<0.001, Fisher exact test) than patients with DA. When midazolam sedation was repeated, cooperation improved for both groups. Conscious sedation procedures using intravenous midazolam, with or without premedication and/or inhalation sedation (50% N₂O/O₂), were shown to be safe and effective in patients with intellectual disability when administered by dentists.
米达唑仑在智力残疾患者口腔护理中的应用文献记载较少。本研究旨在评估静脉注射咪达唑仑在智力残疾(ID)成人和儿童患者(ID 组)与牙科焦虑症患者(DA 组)中的镇静效果和安全性。共有 98 例 ID 患者和 44 例 DA 患者分别参加了 187 次和 133 次静脉注射咪达唑仑程序,评估标准为口腔治疗成功率、合作水平(改良 Venham 量表)和不良反应发生情况。ID 组和 DA 组患者静脉注射咪达唑仑的平均剂量分别为 8.8±4.9mg 和 9.8±4.1mg(t 检验,NS)。在 ID 组的 51%和 DA 组的 61%的治疗中,在置管期间给予 50%N₂O/O₂(NS,Fisher 确切检验)。在 ID 组的 31%和 DA 组的 3%的治疗中,在置管前给予口服或直肠咪达唑仑(p<0.001,Fisher 确切检验)。两组患者 10 次治疗中,均有 9 次治疗成功。ID 组和 DA 组分别有 16.6%和 6.8%的患者出现轻微不良反应(p=0.01,Fisher 确切检验)。ID 组患者在置管过程中经常非常烦躁(25.4%ID 组 vs. 3.9%DA 组),诱导后(58.9%ID 组 vs. 90.3%DA 组)和治疗期间(39.5%ID 组 vs. 59.7%DA 组)放松程度较低(p<0.001,Fisher 确切检验)。与 DA 组患者相比,ID 组患者的合作度较差。当重复使用咪达唑仑镇静时,两组患者的合作度均有所提高。对于智力残疾患者,当由牙医给予咪达唑仑静脉镇静时,联合或不联合预镇静(50%N₂O/O₂),其安全性和有效性得到证实。