ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2023
Parents' satisfaction and children's acceptance of nasal compared to oral midazolam for sedation in two consecutive pediatric dental treatments: a randomized controlled study.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02679781 (Nasal Versus Oral Midazolam Sedation in Routine Pediatric Dental Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Nasal Versus Oral Midazolam Sedation in Routine Pediatric Dental Care
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of the sedative efficacy of oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg vs. 0.75 mg/kg) with papoose board restraint for managing severe dental anxiety in paediatric patients: a retrospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- 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
- Efficacy of intranasal sedation for pediatric dental procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Midazolam, by either the oral or the nasal route, is safe and effective in reducing anxiety and improving behavior in children during dental procedures. Aim: To compare both children's acceptance and parents' satisfaction with midazolam premedication, when administered as an oral syrup or as a nasal spray and explore whether there were positive or negative changes in acceptance during consecutive dental treatment visits. Methods: Randomized controlled study among uncooperative 2-6-year-old children who needed at least two similar dental treatments. On each visit, the acceptability of the medication was assessed as good, fair, or poor. The duration of crying after medication administration was recorded. Additionally, parents were asked to rank their satisfaction with the mode of administration. Results: The study group included 60 children; 30 patients received midazolam orally and 30 nasally. Route of administration did not correlate with medication acceptance in the first ( Conclusions: Acceptance of premedication is expected to deteriorate after the first treatment visit, especially in the oral route of administration. Dentists should consider nasal spray administration for young pediatric patients who need more than one dental treatment. Parents should be prepared for possible resistance or refusal by children. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02679781.
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.