Sedative and behavioral effects of atomized intranasal midazolam in comparison with nebulized midazolam for children undergoing dental treatment: A randomized clinical trial

BackgroundFear and anxiet are significant barriers of dental care in children. Sedation emerged as a valuable behaviour guidance technique to manage uncooperative children.AimTo evaluate the sedative and behavioral effectiveness of midazolam administered via nebulizer in comparison with intranasal atomizer in the behavior management of anxious children during dental treatment.Study DesignTwo‐arm randomized clinical trial with 68 children (3–5 years) assigned to receive nebulized midazolam (NEB MDZ) and atomized intranasal midazolam (AIN MDZ) during dental treatment. The onset time, sedation levels, and behavior of children were documented. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test and Mann–Whitney U tests.ResultsSignificant differences between the two groups in terms of onset time, sedation level, and behavior of children during the dental treatment. AIN MDZ was associated with a significantly faster onset time compared with NEB MD, (p < .001). Children who received NEB MDZ exhibited deeper levels of sedation compared with AIN MDZ group (p = .02). During the administration of local anesthesia, notable statistical differences were observed between the behavior of the two groups (p = .02).ConclusionsMidazolam administered via either nebulizer or intranasal atomizer was the effective route of administration and proved effective in the management of anxious children undergoing dental treatment. AIN MDZ, however, exhibited a faster onset time, whereas children receiving NEB MDZ demonstrated superior behavior compared with those receiving AIN MDZ.