ReviewCureus2025
Comparison of Anesthetic Features in Diazepam and Midazolam for Sedation Dentistry: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Is remimazolam a suitable alternative to midazolam for dental sedation?Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Article
- Unveiling Drug-Drug Interactions in Dental Patients: A Retrospective Real-World Study.Dentistry journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, there have been incidences of shortages of sedatives due to infectious diseases and supply issues. Dental anesthesiologists are required to have backup plans in case of supply shortages. Therefore, the aim of this study was to highlight the characteristics of diazepam and compare them with those of midazolam, and to explore the possibility of proposing useful situations for the use of diazepam in the modern intravenous sedation (IVS) scene. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Literature research was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. After a detailed scrutiny, 20 English-language studies comparing midazolam and diazepam met the eligibility criteria. The evaluation points were classified into four categories: onset of action, recovery from sedation, injection pain, and amnesic effects. The results of this analysis review highlight that diazepam tends to have (a) a slower onset of action and recovery, (b) more injection pain, and (c) a weaker amnesic effect compared with midazolam, and that diazepam has to be administered at higher doses compared with midazolam. The use of two drugs in combination (e.g., midazolam + propofol) is now a common practice due to the advances in anesthetic drugs. In addition, dentistry has become more advanced and involves lengthy procedures, such as implant surgeries. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on the optimal drug dosages in the combination of diazepam and propofol, the postoperative recovery time, and the presence or absence of injection pain and amnesic effects. Diazepam may be an alternative to midazolam for IVS during prolonged dental procedures in situations of shortage and requires further study.
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.