ArticleJournal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)2022
Comparison of two Intranasal Sedatives, Midazolam versus Dexmedetomidine, in Children with High Dental Fear: a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drugs for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Drugs in R&D · 2025Pooled it
- 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 DentistryPooled it
- Comparison of the Effects of Intranasal and Oral Midazolam Premedication on Sedation and Separation From Parents for Pediatric Patients.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Recovery Time, Patient Satisfaction, and Safety of Intranasal Sedatives in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness and acceptance of intranasal dexmedetomidine and intranasal midazolam for sedation in children aged 5-8 years using a mucosal atomizer device: a randomized controlled clinical study.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Article
- Efficacy of intranasal sedation for pediatric dental procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statement of the Problem: Pharmacologic management of uncooperative behavior is a growing trend in dentistry. Determining the most appropriate drug, route of administration, and proper candidate for sedation have been the goal of several investigations. Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the sedative effect of intranasal (IN) sedation of midazolam (MDZ) in compare to dexmedetomidine (DEX) while taking into consideration the effect of dental fear, and psychological status on sedation success. Materials and Method: This double-blind randomized clinical trial included 92 uncooperative dental patients aged 4-6. Study participants were randomly assigned to receive either 0.2mg/kg IN MDZ or 1µg/kg DEX. Sedation was evaluated using the Houpt sedation rating scale. Vital signs were recorded before and during sedation. Prior to sedation, the level of dental fear was determined through children's fear survey schedule-dental subscale (CFSS-DS). Psychological characteristics were screened using the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). Data were analyzed using T-test, Mann-Whitney, Chi-square, and repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Overall ratings of sedation and subscales of sleep, crying, and movement were comparable between groups ( Conclusion: Sedation with IN MDZ resulted in overall behaviors, which were more satisfactory in highly fearful pediatric dental patients. Despite baseline uncooperative behaviors, the psychological status of study participants were close to average and were not associated with sedation failure.
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.