ReviewJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2025
Comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety of nitrous oxide and midazolam for conscious sedation in pediatric dental patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intranasal and Oral Pharmacological Sedation in Pediatric Dentistry: A Thematic Scoping Review of Efficacy, Recovery, and Safety Outcomes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Nitrous Oxide and Midazolam Sedation Protocols in Pediatric Dentistry: A Multicenter Clinical Retrospective Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Impact of Inhalation Sedation on Cardiovascular Haemodynamics in Hypertensive Patients Requiring Dental Treatment: A Clinical Observational Study.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Observational
- Nitrous Oxide and Oral Sedation for Managing Dental Anxiety in Children: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Pharmacologic Sedation-Related Respiratory Complications in Pediatric Dentistry: A Decade-Long Scoping Review.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPRReview
- Parental Acceptance of Pediatric Dentistry Behavior Management Techniques and Its Relationship to Parental Dental Anxiety and Experience in Dubai.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Children's fear of dental treatment can create challenges for dentists in managing their behavior, which may hinder the provision of proper dental care. The use of sedative agents can alleviate anxiety and control behaviors in pediatric dental patients. Nitrous oxide and midazolam are the two most commonly used pharmacological agents for behavioral management in pediatric dental care. However, evidence supporting their efficacy and safety is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to consolidate the most robust evidence on the efficacy and safety of nitrous oxide versus midazolam for conscious sedation in pediatric dental patients aged 3 to 16 years. As per the predefined protocol, a systematic review methodology was employed to search electronic databases. Titles and abstracts were screened, and the full text was reviewed by two authors. The included trials compared nitrous oxide and midazolam as single sedatives in children aged 3 to 16 undergoing dental treatment. These trials compared nitrous oxide with oral, intravenous, transmucosal, or intranasal midazolam. Data on the methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, and results were extracted, and each trial was assessed for risk bias. Of the seven articles, two had a moderate risk of bias and five had a high risk. The overall results showed no statistically significant differences between the two interventions (P = 0.64). Despite the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, the present study provides important information regarding the efficacy of both sedatives. However, well-designed and well-documented clinical trials are still required. In addition, guidelines for the standardization of the criteria and definition of success in procedural sedation need to be developed.
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.