Oral Melatonin Versus Midazolam as Premedication for Intravenous Sedation in Pediatric Dental Patients.

Ghassem Ansari, Mahnaz Fathi, Masoud Fallahinejad Ghajari, Majid Bargrizan, Ahmad Eghbali
{"title":"Oral Melatonin Versus Midazolam as Premedication for Intravenous Sedation in Pediatric Dental Patients.","authors":"Ghassem Ansari,&nbsp;Mahnaz Fathi,&nbsp;Masoud Fallahinejad Ghajari,&nbsp;Majid Bargrizan,&nbsp;Ahmad Eghbali","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effect of oral melatonin and oral midazolam as premedication for intravenous (IV) sedation of pediatric dental patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This crossover, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted on 23 uncooperative 2-6-year-olds with definitely negative behaviors according to the Frankl's scale. Each child served as their own control. The children were randomly divided into two groups: group I received 0.5mg/kg of oral melatonin one hour before IV sedation, while group II received 0.5mg/kg of oral midazolam 30 minutes before IV sedation on their first visit. Every child received the other premedication on their second visit. The degree of sedation was judged according to the Houpt scale. Physiologic parameters including blood pressure (PB), heart rate (HR), and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) and side effects including dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and sleepiness were assessed. The parents' and the operator's satisfaction rates were scored. Data were analyzed using paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were significant differences in sedation scores between the two sessions (P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in alterations of physiologic parameters between the two sessions (P>0.05). Nausea and vomiting were more common during the first two hours in the midazolam group (P=0.002). Tremors were more common in the melatonin group (P=0.013). Dizziness was more evident when melatonin was used (P<0.001). The clinician and the parents were more satisfied with the results of midazolam intake (P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Premedication with oral midazolam in pediatric patients is superior to that with melatonin with a higher parents' and operator's satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":30286,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of Medical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6397733/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of oral melatonin and oral midazolam as premedication for intravenous (IV) sedation of pediatric dental patients.

Materials and methods: This crossover, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted on 23 uncooperative 2-6-year-olds with definitely negative behaviors according to the Frankl's scale. Each child served as their own control. The children were randomly divided into two groups: group I received 0.5mg/kg of oral melatonin one hour before IV sedation, while group II received 0.5mg/kg of oral midazolam 30 minutes before IV sedation on their first visit. Every child received the other premedication on their second visit. The degree of sedation was judged according to the Houpt scale. Physiologic parameters including blood pressure (PB), heart rate (HR), and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) and side effects including dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and sleepiness were assessed. The parents' and the operator's satisfaction rates were scored. Data were analyzed using paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results: There were significant differences in sedation scores between the two sessions (P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in alterations of physiologic parameters between the two sessions (P>0.05). Nausea and vomiting were more common during the first two hours in the midazolam group (P=0.002). Tremors were more common in the melatonin group (P=0.013). Dizziness was more evident when melatonin was used (P<0.001). The clinician and the parents were more satisfied with the results of midazolam intake (P<0.05).

Conclusions: Premedication with oral midazolam in pediatric patients is superior to that with melatonin with a higher parents' and operator's satisfaction.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
口服褪黑素与咪达唑仑作为儿科牙科患者静脉镇静的前用药。
目的:本研究旨在评价口服褪黑素和口服咪达唑仑作为儿科牙科患者静脉(IV)镇静前用药的效果。材料与方法:本交叉双盲随机临床试验采用Frankl’s量表对23名2-6岁具有明确消极行为的不合作儿童进行临床试验。每个孩子都作为自己的对照。将患儿随机分为两组:I组患儿在静脉镇静前1小时口服褪黑素0.5mg/kg, II组患儿在首次就诊时静脉镇静前30分钟口服咪达唑仑0.5mg/kg。每个孩子在第二次就诊时都接受了另一种预用药。根据Houpt评分法判断镇静程度。评估生理参数包括血压(PB)、心率(HR)和血氧饱和度(SpO2)以及副作用包括头晕、恶心、呕吐和嗜睡。对家长和经营者的满意度进行了评分。数据分析采用配对t检验和Wilcoxon符号秩检验。结果:两组患者镇静评分差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。在咪达唑仑组,恶心和呕吐在治疗前2小时更为常见(P=0.002)。褪黑素组震颤更常见(P=0.013)。结论:患儿用药前口服咪达唑仑优于使用褪黑素,且家长满意度和操作人员满意度较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Polymerization Shrinkage of Five Bulk-Fill Composite Resins in Comparison with a Conventional Composite Resin. Effect of Storage Time of a Ceramic Primer on Microshear Bond Strength to Zirconia. Evaluation of the Effect of MTAD on Expression of Enterococcus faecalis Virulence Factors Considering the Role of Different Obturating Materials. Extraskeletal Ewing Sarcoma: Report of an Extremely Rare Case in Temporal Region. Evaluation of the Prevalence of Temporomandibular Joint Involvement in Rheumatoid Arthritis Using Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1