Fallahinejad Ghajari Masoud, Ansari Ghassem, Soleymani Ali Asghar, Shayeghi Shahnaz, Fotuhi Ardakani Faezeh
Associate Professor & Head, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Professor, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2015 Spring;9(2):61-5. doi: 10.15171/joddd.2015.013. Epub 2015 Jun 10.
Background and aims. There are several known sedative drugs, with midazolam and ketamine being the most commonly used drugs in children. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of intranasal and oral midazolam plus ketamine in children with high levels of dental anxiety. Materials and methods. A crossover double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 23 uncooperative children aged 3-6 (negative or definitely negative by Frankel scale), who required at least two similar dental treatment visits. Cases were randomly given ketamine (10 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) through oral or intranasal routes in each visit. The sedative efficacy of the agents was assessed by an overall success rate judged by two independent pediatric dentists based on Houpt's scale for sedation. Data analysis was carried out using Wilcoxon test and paired t-test. Results. Intranasal administration was more effective in reduction of crying and movement during dental procedures compared to oral sedation (P<0.05). Overall behavior control was scored higher in nasal compared to oral routes at the time of LA injection and after 15 minutes (P<0.05). The difference was found to be statistically significant at the start and during treatment. However, the difference was no longer significant after 30 minutes, with the vital signs remaining within physiological limits. Recovery time was longer in the intranasal group (P<0.001) with a more sleepy face (P=0.004). Conclusion. . Intranasal midazolam/ketamine combination was more satisfactory and effective than the oral route when sedating uncooperative children.
背景与目的。有几种已知的镇静药物,咪达唑仑和氯胺酮是儿童中最常用的药物。本研究的目的是比较鼻内和口服咪达唑仑加氯胺酮对牙科焦虑程度高的儿童的效果。材料与方法。对23名3至6岁不合作儿童(Frankel量表评分为阴性或绝对阴性)进行了一项交叉双盲临床试验,这些儿童至少需要进行两次类似的牙科治疗就诊。每次就诊时,通过口服或鼻内途径随机给予患儿氯胺酮(10mg/kg)和咪达唑仑(0.5mg/kg)。由两名独立的儿科牙医根据Houpt镇静量表判断总体成功率,以此评估药物的镇静效果。使用Wilcoxon检验和配对t检验进行数据分析。结果。与口服镇静相比,鼻内给药在减少牙科治疗过程中的哭闹和活动方面更有效(P<0.05)。在局部麻醉注射时和15分钟后,鼻内给药途径的总体行为控制评分高于口服途径(P<0.05)。在开始和治疗期间发现差异具有统计学意义。然而,30分钟后差异不再显著,生命体征保持在生理范围内。鼻内给药组的恢复时间更长(P<0.001),且面部更显困倦(P=0.004)。结论。在使不合作儿童镇静时,鼻内咪达唑仑/氯胺酮联合用药比口服途径更令人满意且有效。