SynthesisMedicine2020
Comparison of dexmedetomidine with midazolam for dental surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-Agent Sedation for Behavioral Management in Pediatric Dentistry: An Umbrella Review of Agents, Routes of Administration, Providers, and Clinical Settings.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Different Sedation Protocols in Pediatric Dental Procedures: An Original Research.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Effect of dexmedetomidine on stress and inflammatory responses in patients with nasotracheal intubation after oral and maxillofacial surgery.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Comparison of vital sign stability and cost effectiveness between midazolam and dexmedetomidine during third molar extraction under intravenous sedation.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2022Article
- A comparative study of patient satisfaction about anesthesia with dexmedetomidine for ambulatory dental surgery.BMC research notes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDexmedetomidine and midazolam have become important approaches for the sedation of dental surgery. However, the comparison of these 2 drugs for the sedation of dental surgery has not been well established. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for dental surgery.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials are searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the influence of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam on dental surgery are included. Two investigators independently have searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.
resultsFive RCTs and 420 patients are included in the meta-analysis. Compared with midazolam intervention for dental surgery, dexmedetomidine intervention has similar lowest SpO2, lowest heart rate and lowest systolic blood pressure, duration of surgery, and total volume of local anesthetic, but is associated with stable and reduced lowest diastolic blood pressure.
conclusionsSimilar benefits of dexmedetomidine and midazolam intervention are observed for the sedation of dental surgery in terms of SpO2, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and the volume of local anesthetic, but dexmedetomidine may result in more stable diastolic blood pressure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.