ArticleBMC oral health2025
Sedation applications in pedodontics procedures: which one should we choose?: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Intranasal and Oral Pharmacological Sedation in Pediatric Dentistry: A Thematic Scoping Review of Efficacy, Recovery, and Safety Outcomes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Correction: Sedation applications in pedodontics procedures: which one should we choose?: a retrospective analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of sedation in the field of pediatric dentistry is becoming increasingly prevalent. While general anesthesia is perceived as a safer alternative, the appropriate use of sedatives, in conjunction with a well-trained team, can effectively mitigate the risks associated with sedation. Our study aims to identify safe drug combinations for prolonged sedation.
methodsThis study was conducted in the Operating Room of the Faculty of Dentistry at Akdeniz University. It encompassed 126 patients, classified as ASA 1-2, aged between 3 and 12 years, who underwent dental treatment with sedation support in the Department of Pedodontics from May to December 2022. The patients were categorized into three groups: (1) Ketamine, (2) Propofol-Ketamine (PK), and (3) Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine (DK). During the procedures, vital signs, the requirement for additional doses, complications, and interventions were meticulously documented. Additionally, the Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS), dentist satisfaction during the procedure, recovery time, and Aldrete scores for the postoperative 1st and 2nd hours were also recorded.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of age, gender, mean weight, and ASA. The minimum requirement for additional doses was recorded in the DK group. Respiratory depression, apnea, hypoxia, and related maneuvers were most frequently observed in the PK group. DK group had minimum requirement for airway suction event. Hypertension and tachycardia were most frequently observed in the K group, while hypotension and bradycardia were most frequently recorded in the DK group. PONV were most common in the K group in which high ketamine doses were administered. RSS was highest in the DK group. The longest recovery times were observed in the DK group. 1st hour Aldrete scores were lower in the DK group. Dentists reached the highest level of satisfaction in the DK group.
conclusionsThis retrospective study provides comparative insights into three sedation regimens for pediatric dental procedures. The dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination demonstrated superior intraoperative stability and fewer respiratory complications, though recovery was prolonged. These findings may guide clinicians in selecting appropriate sedation strategies to improve safety and procedural outcomes in cases involving shared airway management.
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.