Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, K. E.
Right arrow Articles by Welbury, R. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, K. E.
Right arrow Articles by Welbury, R. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2003, Vol. 91, No. 6 850-856
© 2003 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Clinical Investigations

Randomized, controlled, cross-over clinical trial comparing intravenous midazolam sedation with nitrous oxide sedation in children undergoing dental extractions

K. E. Wilson*,1, N. M. Girdler1 and R. R. Welbury2

1 Department of Sedation, Newcastle Dental School and Hospital, Framlington Place, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE2 4BW, UK. 2 Glasgow Dental School, Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, UK

*Corresponding author. E-mail: katherine.wilson@newcastle.ac.uk

Background. The use of benzodiazepines for paediatric dental sedation has received limited attention with regard to research into clinical effectiveness. A study was therefore designed to investigate the use of midazolam, for i.v. sedation in paediatric dental patients.

Method. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of i.v. midazolam in a randomized, controlled, cross-over trial. Children aged 12–16 yr (ASA I and II), requiring two appointments for equivalent but contralateral dental extractions for orthodontic purposes, were recruited. Conscious sedation with either i.v. midazolam titrated at 0.5 mg min–1, to a maximum of 5 mg, or nitrous oxide/oxygen titrated to 30%/70% inhalation sedation was used at the first visit, the alternative being used at the second visit. Vital signs including blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation and ventilatory frequency, as well as sedation levels and behavioural scores, were recorded every 2 min.

Results. Forty patients, mean age 13.2 yr (range 12–16 yr), participated in the trial. A mean dose of midazolam 2.8 mg was administered in the test group. The median time to the maximum level of sedation was 8 min for midazolam compared with 6 min for nitrous oxide (P<0.001). Vital signs for both treatments were comparable and within acceptable clinical limits and communication with the patient was maintained at all times. The median (range) lowest arterial oxygen saturation level recorded for midazolam was 97 (91–99)% compared with 97 (92–100)% for nitrous oxide. The mean (range) recovery time for midazolam was 51.6 (39–65) min and 23.3 (20–34) min for nitrous oxide (P<0.0001). Fifty-one per cent said they preferred i.v. midazolam, 38% preferred nitrous oxide, and 11% had no preference.

Conclusion. I.V. midazolam sedation (0.5 mg min–1 to a maximum of 5 mg) appears to be as effective as nitrous oxide sedation in 12–16-yr-old healthy paediatric dental patients.

Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 850–6


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
D. Hohener, S. Blumenthal, and A. Borgeat
Sedation and regional anaesthesia in the adult patient
Br. J. Anaesth., January 1, 2008; 100(1): 8 - 16.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
J. P. Cravero and G. T. Blike
Review of Pediatric Sedation
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2004; 99(5): 1355 - 1364.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.