ArticleIranian journal of pediatrics2014
Comparison of oral and buccal midazolam for pediatric dental sedation: a randomized, cross-over, clinical trial for efficacy, acceptance and safety.
Article in Iranian journal of pediatrics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comparative Evaluation of Midazolam, Ketamine and Their Combination as Sedative Agents in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Frontiers in dentistry · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the Efficacy of Buccal Midazolam in Comparison With Intranasal Midazolam Sedation in Uncooperative Children During Dental Treatment.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Parenting Styles and Sedation Efficacy in Pediatric Dental Care; A Study in Uncooperative Children Aged 4 to 6 Years: Structural Equation Modeling Approach.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2024Article
- Promethazine hydrochloride reduces children's agitation during ocular examination for trauma.European journal of translational myology · 2022Article
- Post-Discharge Effects and Parents' Opinions of Intranasal Fentanyl with Oral Midazolam Sedation in Pediatric Dental Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Midazolam and its effect on vital signs and behavior in children under conscious sedation in dentistry.Physiological research · 2020Article
- Techniques to administer oral, inhalational, and IV sedation in dentistry.The Australasian medical journal · 2016Review
- Pediatric dental sedation: challenges and opportunities.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2015Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Nebulized Midazolam versus Oral Midazolam as Sedative Premedication in Pediatric Surgeries.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
- Enhancing cooperation during pediatric ultrasound: Oral midazolam versus conventional techniques.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
- Intranasal midazolam sedation as an effective sedation route in pediatric patients for radiologic imaging in the emergency ward: A single-blind randomized trial.Turkish journal of emergency medicineArticle
- Comparison of nitrous oxide/midazolam and nitrous oxide/promethazine for pediatric dental sedation: A randomized, cross-over, clinical trial.Dental research journalArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveProviding a safe and efficient dental treatment for a young patient is a challenge for the dentist and the child. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of buccal midazolam in dental pediatric patients and to compare it with oral Midazolam.
methodsEighteen uncooperative healthy children aged 2.5-6 years were randomized to each of buccal midazolam (0.3mg/kg) or oral midazolam (0.5mg/kg) at the first visit, the alternative has been used at the second visit in a cross-over manner. The study took place at pediatric dentistry clinic of Shahed University, Tehran, from November 2011 to June 2012. The patients' vital signs and behavioral scores were recorded. The patient, the operator and the observer were blinded to the applied medication. Post operatively, patients' and parents' satisfaction were assessed by Visual Analogue Score and a questionnaire respectively. The P-value was set at 0.05 for significance level.
findingsThere were no significant differences in physiologic factors in the medication groups at time 0, 10, 20, 30 minutes and discharge. There was also no significant difference between the two groups in behavioral parameters. The majority of parents rated both sedative agents as "effective" or "very effective" and their children mostly were without anxiety or with minor anxiety.
conclusionBuccal midazolam may be safely and efficiently used in sedation of pediatric dental patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25535540PMC4268841What 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.