ArticleCureus2023
Assessment of Pain During Pediatric Dental Treatment Using Different Sedative Agents: A Crossover Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Behavioral management techniques are employed for children who are fearful and uncooperative. Pharmacologic sedation and anesthesia are frequently utilized to manage pain and anxiety in pediatric dental patients. Aim To evaluate the intraoperative and postoperative pain levels during dental treatment of children sedated with 1.5 μg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine, 0.3 mg/kg intranasal midazolam, and nitrous oxide. Materials and methods In this crossover study, 24 children between the ages of five and seven years were randomly assigned to receive intranasal atomized dexmedetomidine, intranasal atomized midazolam, and inhaled nitrous oxide during three different visits. At each visit, a single pulp therapy procedure was conducted after administering the respective sedative agent, and the pain levels were documented. There was a one-week interval between each visit to allow for a washout period. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0 (Released 2013; IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, United States) using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Kruskal-Wallis H test (p < 0.05). Results All three sedative agents were equally effective in controlling postoperative and intraoperative pain. Although there was no statistically significant difference among the groups, clinically, midazolam showed lower intraoperative pain levels (mean 1.78 ± 1.42). Conclusion In pediatric dental patients, intranasal midazolam at a dosage of 0.3 mg/kg and intranasal dexmedetomidine at a dosage of 1.5 μg/kg demonstrate comparable effectiveness to nitrous oxide sedation in pain management. These options serve as effective alternatives for anxious children who may not tolerate nitrous oxide sedation.
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.