EVALUATION OF ORAL MIDAZOLAM AS CONSCIOUS SEDATION FOR PEDIATRIC PATIENTS IN ORAL RESTORATION
中国医学科学杂志(英文版)2006年0卷第3期 页码:163-166
Updated:2024-04-10
|
Share with wechat friends or circle of friends
Export references
EVALUATION OF ORAL MIDAZOLAM AS CONSCIOUS SEDATION FOR PEDIATRIC PATIENTS IN ORAL RESTORATION
Affiliations:
Author bio:
Funds:
DOI:
中图分类号:R788
纸质出版日期:2006
Accepted:
Scan QR Code
EVALUATION OF ORAL MIDAZOLAM AS CONSCIOUS SEDATION FOR PEDIATRIC PATIENTS IN ORAL RESTORATION[J]. 中国医学科学杂志(英文版), 2006,0(3):163-166.
EVALUATION OF ORAL MIDAZOLAM AS CONSCIOUS SEDATION FOR PEDIATRIC PATIENTS IN ORAL RESTORATION[J]. Chinese medical sciences journal, 2006, 0(3): 163-166.
EVALUATION OF ORAL MIDAZOLAM AS CONSCIOUS SEDATION FOR PEDIATRIC PATIENTS IN ORAL RESTORATION[J]. 中国医学科学杂志(英文版), 2006,0(3):163-166.DOI:
EVALUATION OF ORAL MIDAZOLAM AS CONSCIOUS SEDATION FOR PEDIATRIC PATIENTS IN ORAL RESTORATION[J]. Chinese medical sciences journal, 2006, 0(3): 163-166.DOI:
EVALUATION OF ORAL MIDAZOLAM AS CONSCIOUS SEDATION FOR PEDIATRIC PATIENTS IN ORAL RESTORATION
摘要
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effect of midazolam alone on sedation in young children for dental restorative care. Methods Forty children
aged 5 to 10 years with a mean age of 7.3 years
participated in this study. Twenty-one patients were assigned to intervention group received 0.5 mg/kg of oral midazolam 20 minutes prior to the beginning of dental treatment
and 19 patients in control group received placebo liquid 20 minutes before treatment. All patients received painless local anesthetic injection and were restrained with children’s board and bands. Blood pressure (BP)
heart rate (HR)
oxygen saturation
treatment compliance scores of the Ramsay scale
the Briekopf and Buttner scale
Frankl scale
and the Houpt scale were recorded. Each procedure was taped and all the data were evaluated every 5 minutes by an anesthetist or experienced dentist who was unaware of the drug given to the child.Results HR in intervention group (82.5±5.1 bpm) was much lower than that in control group (95.2±8.9 bpm; F=31.20
P<0.001). Intervention group had a significantly lower systolic BP level (94.8±5.6mmHg) than control group (98.5±5.5mmHg; F=4.34
P=0.04)
but the diastolic BP (63.0±3.5mmHg) was not significantly lower than control group (65.5±4.8mmHg; F=3.31
P=0.07). Children in intervention group showed more compliance. The patients’ scores of the Ramsay scale
Briekopf and Buttner scale
Frankl scale
and Houpt scale in intervention group (1.37±0.96
1.37±0.83
1.32±0.67
and 2.32±1.49
respectively) were significantly lower than those in control group (3.71±1.23
2.71±0.96
2.71±0.90
and 4.71±1.19; F=44.66
22.36
30.39
and 31.88
respectively
all P<0.001). Conclusions Oral midazolam alone is safe and produces effective sedation for the dental treatment of young children. Oral midazolam application should be generally preferred because it is more easily accepted by pediatric patients.