ArticleJournal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran)2014
Sedative Effect of Oral Midazolam/Hydroxyzine versus Chloral Hydrate/Hydroxyzine on 2-6 Year-Old Uncooperative Dental Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of sedative effects of oral midazolam/chloral hydrate and midazolam/promethazine in pediatric dentistry.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2018Article
- Conscious Sedation Efficacy of 0.3 and 0.5 mg/kg Oral Midazolam for Three to Six Year-Old Uncooperative Children Undergoing Dental Treatment: A Clinical Trial.Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran) · 2016Article
- Memory effects of sedative drugs in children and adolescents--protocol for a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2016Article
- How Do Observational Scales Correlate the Ratings of Children's Behavior during Pediatric Procedural Sedation?BioMed research international · 2016Article
- A retrospective study of deep sedation with concomitant administration of sedative agents in children undergoing surgical removal of a mesiodens.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2015Article
- Comparison of Oral and Intranasal Midazolam/Ketamine Sedation in 3-6-year-old Uncooperative Dental Patients.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2015Article
- Comparison of Oral Midazolam and Promethazine with Oral Midazolam alone for Sedating Children during Computed Tomography.Emergency (Tehran, Iran) · 2015Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDifferent drugs are used for conscious sedation in pediatric dentistry either single or in combination. This study assessed the comparative effect of midazolam/hydroxyzine and chloral hydrate/hydroxyzine on 2-6 year-old uncooperative children needing dental treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsA double blind cross-over randomized clinical trial was designed and 16 children aged 2-6 years with ASA1 status who were judged with negative to definitely negative behavior (according to Frankl) were chosen. Cases were divided randomly into two groups. The first group received midazolam/hydroxyzine (MH) at the first visit while the second group received chloral hydrate/hydroxyzine (CHH) as the first medication. Both groups received the other regimen at the second visit. Midazolam 0.5mg/kg and chloral hydrate 50mg/kg with 1mg/kg hydroxyzine were administered. Cases were subsequently assessed for sedation and then dental treatment was performed. Blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR) were measured before and after drug administration, as well as during and after dental treatment. The Houpt scale was also used for the level of sedation before, during and after treatment. Data were analyzed using Wilcox-on signed rank test and the paired t-test.
resultsSedative success rate was 64.3% in cases of MH and 33.3% in CHH. The difference between groups was significant (P=0.046). The success rate was significantly different between groups at different measurement stages as well (P<0.05). No difference was found on the child's behavior scale based on the type of drugs used first; this indicates no carry-over effect. Comparing the PR and SpO2 values at different readings showed no significant differences.
conclusionMidazolam/hydroxyzine showed a significantly higher sedative effect than chloral hydrate/hydroxyzine in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24910681PMC4037271W2188362902What 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.