Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24662315›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutics2014

An evaluation of intranasal sufentanil and dexmedetomidine for pediatric dental sedation.

James M Hitt, Toby Corcoran, Kelly Michienzi, Paul Creighton, Christopher Heard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Determination of the EDWorld journal of clinical cases · 2022
    Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. The effects of beta-endorphin: state change modification.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2015
    Review
  12. Pediatric dental sedation: challenges and opportunities.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2015
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

James M HittDepartment of Anesthesiology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA. jhitt@buffalo.edu.
Toby CorcoranDepartment of Community and Pediatric Dentistry, State University of New York at Buffalo, Women and Children's Hospital, Buffalo, NY 14222, USA. Tobycorcorandds@gmail.com.
Kelly MichienziDepartment of Community and Pediatric Dentistry, State University of New York at Buffalo, Women and Children's Hospital, Buffalo, NY 14222, USA. kmichienzi@kaleidahealth.org.
Paul CreightonDepartment of Community and Pediatric Dentistry, State University of New York at Buffalo, Women and Children's Hospital, Buffalo, NY 14222, USA. pcreighto@gmail.com.
Christopher HeardDepartment of Pediatric Anesthesiology, Division of Pediatric Critical Care, State University of New York at Buffalo, Women and Children's Hospital, Buffalo, NY 14222, USA. heardop1@verizon.net.
University at Buffalo, State University of New York · USWomen & Children's Hospital of Buffalo · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID24662315
PMCPMC3978530
OpenAlexW2013991397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.