Ma Lin, Zhang Jie, Hou Xue Ying, Jing Quan, Wan Kuo
Department of Stomatology,PUMC Hospital,CAMS and PUMC,Beijing 100730,China.
Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao. 2019 Feb 28;41(1):106-110. doi: 10.3881/j.issn.1000-503X.10391.
Objective To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of oral midazolam sedation combined nitrous oxide sedation for reducing dental fear in children.Methods Totally 77 children with a Frankl's Behavior Rating Scale score of 1 were included in this study,among whom 41 received a total of 78 person-times of oral midazolam sedation (0.50-0.75 mg·kg ) (midazolam group) and 36 children were treated with the combination of 0.4 mg/kg oral midazolam with 30%-40% nitrous oxide (totally 73 person-times)(combination group). At each visit,heart rate,arterial oxygen saturation,and treatments were recorded. The behaviors of children during the treatment were assessed by Frankl's Behavior Rating Scale,the completion of treatment was assessed by Houpt Scale,and the sedation status was assessed by Ramsay Scale. Telephone follow-up was performed to record the side effects 24 hours after treatment. Results The vital signs were stable among all the 77 subjects,with a Ramsay score of 2 or 3. In the midazolam group, the behaviors were cooperative in 52 person-times (66.7%) and not cooperative in 26 person-times (33.3%);the planned treatments were completed in 62 person-times (79.5%) and partially completed in 16 person-times(20.5%). In the combination group,the behaviors were cooperative in 56 person-times (76.7%) and not cooperative in 17 person-times (23.3%);64 person-times (87.7%) completed the planned treatments and 9 person-times (12.3%) partially completed the treatments. The success rates of sedation (χ =1.87,P= 0.17) and treatment (χ =1.83,P= 0.18) were not significantly different between these two groups. The median Frankl scale score was significantly higher in the combination group [3 (3,4)] than in the midazolam group [3 (2,4)] (Z=2.647,P=0.008]. The median score of Houpt scale in the combination group [5(4,6)] was also significantly higher than in midazolam group [5(3,5)] (Z=2.236,P=0.026]. In midazolam group,there were 7 person-times of dysphoria,3 person-times of diplopia,and 2 person-times of hiccough among 78 person-times;in the combination group,there were 5 person-times of dysphoria,5 person-times of diplopia,1 person-time of hiccough,and 2 person-times of vomit among 73 person-times of treatment. Thus,there was no significant difference in the incidence of side effects (15.4% vs.17.8%,χ =0.160,P=0.689). Logistic regression analysis showed that the success rate of treatment was not associated with sex (OR=1.704,P=0.174),dose (OR=1.289,P=0.516),and treatment types (OR=0.555,P=0.143). Children over 3 years old had a significantly high success rate than those under 3 years old (OR=3.372,P=0.011). Conclusions Oral midazolam is safe and effective for reducing dental fear in children. The combination of oral midazolam with 30%-40% nitrous oxide can improve the behaviors of children during the dental treatment,especially in children over 3 years old.
目的 评估口服咪达唑仑镇静联合氧化亚氮镇静用于减轻儿童牙科恐惧的安全性和有效性。方法 本研究共纳入77例Frankl行为评定量表评分为1分的儿童,其中41例接受了共78人次的口服咪达唑仑镇静(0.50 - 0.75 mg·kg)(咪达唑仑组),36例儿童接受了0.4 mg/kg口服咪达唑仑与30% - 40%氧化亚氮联合治疗(共73人次)(联合组)。每次就诊时记录心率、动脉血氧饱和度及治疗情况。采用Frankl行为评定量表评估儿童治疗期间的行为,采用Houpt量表评估治疗完成情况,采用Ramsay量表评估镇静状态。治疗后24小时进行电话随访记录副作用。结果 77例受试者生命体征均稳定,Ramsay评分为2或3分。咪达唑仑组中,行为合作52人次(66.7%),不合作26人次(33.3%);计划治疗完成62人次(79.5%),部分完成16人次(20.5%)。联合组中,行为合作56人次(76.7%),不合作17人次(23.3%);64人次(87.7%)完成计划治疗,9人次(12.3%)部分完成治疗。两组镇静成功率(χ =1.87,P = 0.17)和治疗成功率(χ =1.83,P = 0.18)差异无统计学意义。联合组Frankl量表评分中位数[3(3,4)]显著高于咪达唑仑组[3(2,4)](Z =2.647,P =0.008)。联合组Houpt量表评分中位数[5(4,6)]也显著高于咪达唑仑组[5(3,5)](Z =2.236,P =0.026)。咪达唑仑组78人次中有7人次烦躁、3人次复视、2人次呃逆;联合组73人次治疗中有5人次烦躁、5人次复视、1人次呃逆、2人次呕吐。两组副作用发生率差异无统计学意义(15.4%对17.8%,χ =0.160,P =0.689)。Logistic回归分析显示,治疗成功率与性别(OR =1.704,P =0.174)、剂量(OR =1.289,P =0.516)及治疗类型(OR =0.555,P =0.143)无关。3岁以上儿童治疗成功率显著高于3岁以下儿童(OR =3.372,P =0.011)。结论 口服咪达唑仑对减轻儿童牙科恐惧安全有效。口服咪达唑仑与30% - 40%氧化亚氮联合应用可改善儿童牙科治疗期间的行为,尤其是3岁以上儿童。