ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of the Efficacy of Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine As Sedative Agents in Third Molar Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of dexmedetomidine on stress and inflammatory responses in patients with nasotracheal intubation after oral and maxillofacial surgery.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Minor dental and oral surgical procedures have been made comfortable with the rise in the use of daycare sedatives. Of these sedatives, midazolam is deemed a common sedative used for minor oral surgical procedures. Newer and safer sedatives such as dexmedetomidine have certain properties that may prove more efficient in oral surgical procedures. Third molar surgery is one of the most common minor oral surgical procedures performed in dentistry. Thus, this study aims to compare the efficacy of midazolam and dexmedetomidine as sedative agents in third molar surgery. Materials and methods Sixty young adult patients free from other comorbidities were included in the study with ages ranging between 18 and 50 years. The samples were matched for the difficulty of impacted teeth and randomly distributed among the groups. Groups were administered the respective sedative drugs midazolam and dexmedetomidine and their effects were observed through the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. The intraoperative vitals and sedation effects were checked every 15 minutes. Statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22 (Released 2013; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States). Independent samples t-test and analysis of variance were the statistical tests employed to analyze the obtained data with p<0.05 considered as statistically significant. Results The depth of sedation has been both subjectively and objectively assessed and had no significant difference among the groups. The intra-operative heart rate assessment proved a more efficient reduction of pulse rate in the dexmedetomidine group as compared with the midazolam group. However, it was not statistically significant (p=0.121). The mean diastolic blood pressure showed a statistically significant difference between the groups with dexmedetomidine having lower blood diastolic pressure compared to midazolam (p=0.004). Quick arousal was witnessed in the dexmedetomidine group. Conclusion It can be concluded from the study that both dexmedetomidine and midazolam were equally effective as sedative agents for third molar surgery. However, the nature of cardio-protection, anti-sialagogue, and analgesic properties of dexmedetomidine can prove helpful, especially in minor oral surgical procedures like third molar surgery and it is recommended.
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.