Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30294144›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry2018

A Comparison of Oral Midazolam-ketamine, Dexmedetomidine-fentanyl, and Dexmedetomidine-ketamine Combinations as Sedative Agents in Pediatric Dentistry: A Triple-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

Astha Jaikaria, Seema Thakur, Parul Singhal, Deepak Chauhan, Cheranjeevi Jayam, Kartik Syal

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

Article in Contemporary clinical dentistry, 2018. 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
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Astha JaikariaDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, HP Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Seema ThakurDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, HP Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Parul SinghalDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, HP Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Deepak ChauhanDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, HP Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Cheranjeevi JayamDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, HP Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Kartik SyalDepartment of Anesthesiology, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Government Dental College and Hospital · INIndira Gandhi Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIt is common to encounter a patient who is anxious to the magnitude that precludes the possibility of provision of dental treatment. This study aims to evaluate and compare the sedative effect of oral combinations of midazolam-ketamine (MK), dexmedetomidine-fentanyl (DF), and dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) in a group of uncooperative children requiring dental treatment. METHODOLOGY: This was a prospective, randomized, triple-blind study where 36 children who were 3-9 year old with American Society of Anesthesiologists -I status and presenting early childhood caries were randomly assigned to: Group A - 0.3 mg/kg of M and 5 mg/kg K, Group B - 2 ug/kg of D with 3 ug/kg of F, and Group C - 2ug/kg of D with 5 mg/kg of K in 1 mL honey. Patients' blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation were recorded from the start of the procedure till discharge. Patients' behavior, sedation status, and wake-up behavior were evaluated with Modified Observer Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale and ease of treatment completion by Houpt scale.

resultsHemodynamic changes were statistically insignificant in all three groups. 72.8% of patients in Group A and 58.3% of patients in Group B were successfully sedated during treatment. Behavior improvement was seen in all three groups during treatment with statistically insignificant difference in behavior scores produced by Group C. Ease of treatment completion was moderately better with Group A.

conclusionOral DK has a comparable sedative property with oral MK combination. Oral DF promises to be a potential sedative agent for children due to its successful anxiolysis.

Indexed as

Dexmedetomidine-fentanyldexmedetomidine-ketaminemidazolam-ketaminepediatric dentistrysedation

Identifiers

PMID30294144
PMCPMC6169282
OpenAlexW2889567276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.