ArticleJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2025
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.
Article in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative safety and sedation effectiveness of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for preoperative anxiety reduction in pediatric surgical patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Pooled it
- Intranasal dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for pediatric dental sedation: a pooled analysis of clinical trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Intranasal and Oral Pharmacological Sedation in Pediatric Dentistry: A Thematic Scoping Review of Efficacy, Recovery, and Safety Outcomes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient age, preoperative anxiety, dental requirement, risks associated with pharmaceutical management, safety, parental expectations, and cost influence the choice of pharmacological behavior management. Thus, this randomized controlled clinical study aimed to compare the effectiveness and acceptance of intranasal dexmedetomidine and midazolam for sedation in children aged 5-8 years using a mucosal atomizer device (MAD). Methods: A total of 48 participants with Frankl's II behavior were randomly divided into two groups: Group I received intranasal midazolam (0.25 mg/kg), and Group II received intranasal dexmedetomidine (1.5 µg/kg). The primary outcomes assessed were drug acceptance, onset and effectiveness of sedation, and pre-and post-treatment anxiety levels. Secondary measures were also evaluated pre- and post-treatment. Results: Intranasal dexmedetomidine demonstrated significantly better drug acceptance (P < 0.001). Midazolam had a faster onset but was less effective than dexmedetomidine (P < 0.001). Additionally, dexmedetomidine exhibited better anxiolytic properties than midazolam (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine was better accepted by children aged 5-8 years, was more effective, and had superior anxiolytic properties compared with midazolam.
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.