Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26236429›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects2015

Comparison of Oral and Intranasal Midazolam/Ketamine Sedation in 3-6-year-old Uncooperative Dental Patients.

Masoud Fallahinejad Ghajari, Ghassem Ansari, Ali Asghar Soleymani, Shahnaz Shayeghi, Faezeh Fotuhi Ardakani

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

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

  1. Intranasal versus sublingual sedation in pediatric dentistry: a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Efficacy of Midazolam in Outpatient Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Masoud Fallahinejad GhajariAssociate Professor & Head, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ghassem AnsariProfessor, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ali Asghar SoleymaniAssistant Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Shahnaz ShayeghiAssociate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Faezeh Fotuhi ArdakaniAssistant Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IRTehran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and aims. There are several known sedative drugs, with midazolam and ketamine being the most commonly used drugs in children. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of intranasal and oral midazolam plus ketamine in children with high levels of dental anxiety. Materials and methods. A crossover double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 23 uncooperative children aged 3-6 (negative or definitely negative by Frankel scale), who required at least two similar dental treatment visits. Cases were randomly given ketamine (10 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) through oral or intranasal routes in each visit. The sedative efficacy of the agents was assessed by an overall success rate judged by two independent pediatric dentists based on Houpt's scale for sedation. Data analysis was carried out using Wilcoxon test and paired t-test. Results. Intranasal administration was more effective in reduction of crying and movement during dental procedures compared to oral sedation (P<0.05). Overall behavior control was scored higher in nasal compared to oral routes at the time of LA injection and after 15 minutes (P<0.05). The difference was found to be statistically significant at the start and during treatment. However, the difference was no longer significant after 30 minutes, with the vital signs remaining within physiological limits. Recovery time was longer in the intranasal group (P<0.001) with a more sleepy face (P=0.004). Conclusion. . Intranasal midazolam/ketamine combination was more satisfactory and effective than the oral route when sedating uncooperative children.

Indexed as

Anxietyintranasalketaminemidazolamoral sedation

Identifiers

PMID26236429
PMCPMC4517191
OpenAlexW1486593972

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.