Sunbul Nada, Delvi Mohamed Bilal, Zahrani Tariq Al, Salama Fouad
College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Anesthesia, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Pediatr Dent. 2014 Nov-Dec;36(7):483-8.
The purpose of this randomized, controlled, crossover clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the behavioral differences resulting from the sedative effects of atomized buccal (transmucosal) and atomized intranasal (parenteral) midazolam (0.3 mg/kg) as a method for sedation of pediatric dental patients.
Twenty-five 36- to 72-month-old patients were randomly selected and divided into two groups that were sedated with either atomized buccal in the first visit or intranasal midazolam in the second visit (0.3 mg/kg). Patient be- havior was rated, and drug acceptance by method of administration was determined.
There were no statistically significant differences between both groups in maximum working time. There were significant differences between both groups in drug acceptance (P=.008) and onset time (P=.00). The statistical differences between the two groups were not significant in all behavior rating scales, except for the crying rating scale, since the buccal group showed more crying.
Atomized buccal and intranasal midazolam are both effective for sedation of pediatric dental patients and have the same maximum working time. However, atomized intranasal is more acceptable by children, has faster onset time, and children demonstrate less crying.
本随机对照交叉临床试验旨在评估并比较雾化口腔(经黏膜)和雾化鼻内(非肠道)咪达唑仑(0.3mg/kg)镇静效果导致的行为差异,以此作为儿科牙科患者的镇静方法。
随机选取25名36至72个月大的患者,分为两组,一组在首次就诊时接受雾化口腔咪达唑仑镇静,另一组在第二次就诊时接受雾化鼻内咪达唑仑镇静(0.3mg/kg)。对患者行为进行评分,并确定给药方式的药物接受度。
两组在最长工作时间上无统计学显著差异。两组在药物接受度(P = 0.008)和起效时间(P = 0.00)上存在显著差异。除哭闹评分量表外,两组在所有行为评分量表上的统计学差异均不显著,因为口腔组哭闹更多。
雾化口腔和雾化鼻内咪达唑仑对儿科牙科患者镇静均有效,且最长工作时间相同。然而,雾化鼻内咪达唑仑更易被儿童接受,起效时间更快,且儿童哭闹更少。