» Articles » PMID: 11862873

Factors Associated with Administration Route when Using Midazolam for Pediatric Conscious Sedation

Overview
Specialties Dentistry
Pediatrics
Date 2002 Feb 28
PMID 11862873
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Midazolam conscious sedation records of pediatric dental patients, one to six years of age, were reviewed retrospectively to: 1) examine the factors associated with the use of oral and nasal routes of administration and their effect on displayed behavior during dental treatment and 2) determine whether a child's compliance with oral administration is predictive of the intraoperative behavior displayed during dental treatment. Two hundred and fifty-seven conscious sedation records for 222 pediatric dental patients sedated with orally or nasally administered midazolam for dental treatment at the University of Florida were reviewed. Data collected included the patient's age, gender, route of administration, dose, compliance with oral administration, appointment type (planned vs. emergency), previous sedation experience with midazolam, operator vs. parent administration of the medication, use of papoose board and nitrous oxide/oxygen inhalation, types of procedures performed (restorations only, extractions only, or both), length of treatment rendered, and preoperative and intraoperative behavioral assessments of the child. The collected data were analyzed with Statview software using ANOVA and Chi-square analyses. There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) between oral and nasal administration for the parameters of age, procedure length, appointment type, procedures performed, previous sedation experience and use of the papoose board and nitrous oxide/oxygen inhalation. While there was no statistically significant influence of chronological age on the preoperative Frankl behavior ratings, there was a statistically significant mean age difference with respect to the administrator of the medication (parent vs. operator), papoose board use, N2O/O2 use and previous sedation experience. Forty-five percent of the subjects were willing to accept oral administration of the medication, however, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.114) between the child's compliance to accept the medication and the intraoperative Frankl behavioral ratings displayed during dental treatment. In this review of midazolam conscious sedation records of pediatric dental patients. 1) route of administration was significantly influenced by several patient and procedural variables, resulting in different behavioral outcomes and 2) compliance with oral administration was not predictive of behavior displayed during treatment.

Citing Articles

Parents' satisfaction and children's acceptance of nasal compared to oral midazolam for sedation in two consecutive pediatric dental treatments: a randomized controlled study.

Fux-Noy A, Saadi Q, Shmueli A, Halperson E, Ram D, Moskovitz M Front Dent Med. 2025; 4:1296823.

PMID: 39916898 PMC: 11797828. DOI: 10.3389/fdmed.2023.1296823.


Sedation of children undergoing dental treatment.

Ashley P, Chaudhary M, Lourenco-Matharu L Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 12:CD003877.

PMID: 30566228 PMC: 6517004. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003877.pub5.


Intranasal Premedication Effect of Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam on the Behavior of 2-6-Year-Old Uncooperative Children in Dental Clinic.

Mahdavi A, Ghajari M, Ansari G, Shafiei L J Dent (Tehran). 2018; 15(2):79-85.

PMID: 29971125 PMC: 6026311.


Pediatric dental sedation: challenges and opportunities.

Nelson T, Xu Z Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2015; 7:97-106.

PMID: 26345425 PMC: 4555969. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S64250.


Premedication with dexmedetomidine in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Peng K, Wu S, Ji F, Li J Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2014; 69(11):777-86.

PMID: 25518037 PMC: 4255070. DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2014(11)12.