ArticleJournal of dental sciences2024
Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam as intranasal premedication for intravenous deep sedation in pediatric dental treatment.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Multispecies Systematic and Critical Review of Intranasal Administration in Veterinary Anaesthesia and Emergency Care: Promising Evidence and Overlooked Challenges.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical feasibility of high-flow nasal oxygenation during dental procedures in pediatric patients under intravenous deep sedation: initial experience.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Deep sedation using intranasal dexmedetomidine followed by intravenous propofol for pediatric dental treatment.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Recovery Time, Patient Satisfaction, and Safety of Intranasal Sedatives in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric dental sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Review
- Efficacy of intranasal sedation for pediatric dental procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Review
- Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Administration Precipitates Respiratory Failure in Child With Croup and Asthma.Clinical case reports · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Optimal sedation management for pediatric dental treatment demands special focus as it's tubeless and shares a same oral space. The study was to evaluate dexmedetomidine compared to midazolam for intranasal premedication in pediatric dental treatment under intravenous deep sedation. Materials and methods: A hundred children aged 3-7 years scheduled for elective dental treatment under intravenous deep sedation anesthesia were enrolled, of whom 50 children (Group D) were intranasally premedicated with 2.0 μg/kg dexmedetomidine and the remaining 50 children (Group M) received traditional 0.2 mg/kg midazolam. Acceptance rate of venipuncture was regarded as the primary endpoint. Results: The acceptance rate of venipuncture in Group D and Group M were 76% versus 52%, respectively ( Conclusion: Compared to the 0.2 mg/kg midazolam, children premedicated with 2.0 μg/kg intranasal dexmedetomidine showed superior venipuncture acceptance, had less intraoperative choking cough and required fewer suction. It seems to be a good alternative to midazolam as premedication for deep sedation in pediatric dental treatment.
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.