Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27475684›Full record

SynthesisMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2016

Current methods of sedation in dental patients - a systematic review of the literature.

J-R Corcuera-Flores, J Silvestre-Rangil, A Cutando-Soriano, J López-Jiménez

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

Synthesis in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Ketamine-propofol (ketofol) in procedural sedation: a narrative review.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

J-R Corcuera-FloresSchool of Dentistry, C/Avicena s/n, 41009 Seville, Spain, joserra_64@hotmail.com.
J Silvestre-Rangil
A Cutando-Soriano
J López-Jiménez
Hospital de Nens de Barcelona · ESUniversidad de Granada · ESUniversidad de Sevilla · ESUniversitat de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe main objective of this systematic literature review is to identify the safest and most effective sedative drugs so as to ensure successful sedation with as few complications as possible. STUDY

designA systematic literature review of the PubMed MEDLINE database was carried out using the key words "conscious sedation," "drugs," and "dentistry." A total of 1,827 scientific articles were found, and these were narrowed down to 473 articles after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. These 473 studies were then individually assessed for their suitability for inclusion in this literature review.

resultsA total of 21 studies were selected due to their rigorous study design and conduciveness to further, more exhaustive analysis. The selected studies included a total of 1,0003 patients classified as ASA I or II. Midazolam was the drug most frequently used for successful sedation in dental surgical procedures. Ketamine also proved very useful when administered intranasally, although some side effects were observed when delivered via other routes of administration. Both propofol and nitrous oxide (N2O) are also effective sedative drugs.

conclusionsMidazolam is the drug most commonly used to induce moderate sedation in dental surgical procedures, and it is also very safe. Other sedative drugs like ketamine, dexmedetomidine and propofol have also been proven safe and effective; however, further comparative clinical studies are needed to better demonstrate which of these are the safest and most effective.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, DentalHypnotics and SedativesProcedural SedationHumansMidazolamPropofolHypnotics and SedativesMidazolamPropofol

Identifiers

PMID27475684
PMCPMC5005095
OpenAlexW2399301683

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.