ArticlePharmaceutics2014
An evaluation of intranasal sufentanil and dexmedetomidine for pediatric dental sedation.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intranasal dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for pediatric dental sedation: a pooled analysis of clinical trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- An evaluation of dexmedetomidine in combination with midazolam in pediatric sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of dexmedetomidine to midazolam as premedication and a sedative agent in pediatric patients undergoing dental procedures.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Determination of the EDWorld journal of clinical cases · 2022Trial
- Single-Agent Sedation for Behavioral Management in Pediatric Dentistry: An Umbrella Review of Agents, Routes of Administration, Providers, and Clinical Settings.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Procedural sedation in dentistry: a scoping review and proposal for an ad hoc informed consent.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Comparison of two Intranasal Sedatives, Midazolam versus Dexmedetomidine, in Children with High Dental Fear: a Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2022Article
- Intranasal sufentanil versus intravenous morphine for acute severe trauma pain: A double-blind randomized non-inferiority study.PLoS medicine · 2019Article
- Techniques to administer oral, inhalational, and IV sedation in dentistry.The Australasian medical journal · 2016Review
- Dexmedetomidine for acute baclofen withdrawal.Neurocritical care · 2015Article
- The effects of beta-endorphin: state change modification.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2015Review
- Pediatric dental sedation: challenges and opportunities.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2015Review
- Conscious Sedation: Emerging Trends in Pediatric Dentistry.Anesthesia, essays and researchesReview
- Comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine and dexmedetomidine-ketamine for premedication in pediatrics patients: A randomized double-blind study.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conscious or moderate sedation is routinely used to facilitate the dental care of the pre- or un-cooperative child. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has little respiratory depressant effect, possibly making it a safer option when used as an adjunct to either opioids or benzodiazepines. Unlike intranasal (IN) midazolam, IN application of DEX and sufentanil (SUF) does not appear to cause much discomfort. Further, although DEX lacks respiratory depressive effects, it is an α2-agonist that can cause hypotension and bradycardia when given in high doses or during prolonged periods of administration. The aim of this feasibility study was to prospectively assess IN DEX/SUF as a potential sedation regimen for pediatric dental procedures. After IRB approval and informed consent, children (aged 3-7 years; n = 20) from our dental clinic were recruited. All patients received 2 μg/kg (max 40 μg) of IN DEX 45 min before the procedure, followed 30 min later by 1 μg/kg (max 20 μg) of IN SUF. An independent observer rated the effects of sedation using the Ohio State University Behavior Rating Scale (OSUBRS) and University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS). The dentist and the parent also assessed the efficacy of sedation. Dental procedures were well tolerated and none were aborted. The mean OSUBRS procedure score was 2.1, the UMSS procedure score was 1.6, and all scores returned to baseline after the procedure. The average dentist rated quality of sedation was 7.6 across the 20 subjects. After discharge, parents reported one child with prolonged drowsiness and one child who vomited at home. The use of IN DEX supplemented with IN SUF provided both an effective and tolerable form of moderate sedation. Although onset and recovery are slower than with oral (PO) midazolam and transmucosal fentanyl, the quality of the sedation may be better with less risk of respiratory depression. Results from this preliminary study showed no major complications from IN delivery of these agents.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.