ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Comparative Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Different Sedation Protocols in Pediatric Dental Procedures: An Original Research.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pharmacologic Sedation-Related Respiratory Complications in Pediatric Dentistry: A Decade-Long Scoping Review.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPRReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different sedation protocols commonly used in pediatric dental procedures, specifically focusing on Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine. Methods: A retrospective comparative study was conducted on pediatric patients undergoing dental procedures under sedation. Three sedation protocols (Midazolam, Dexmedetomidine, and Midazolam-Ketamine combination) were evaluated. The primary outcomes assessed were sedation efficacy, patient cooperation, and side effects. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine differences between groups. Results: The study demonstrated significant differences in sedation efficacy and patient cooperation between the protocols. Dexmedetomidine showed superior efficacy in maintaining stable sedation levels and minimizing adverse reactions compared to Midazolam. The combination of Midazolam and Ketamine provided a quicker onset but was associated with a higher incidence of side effects. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is a safer and more effective sedation option for pediatric dental procedures compared to Midazolam and its combination with Ketamine. Further randomized controlled trials are recommended to confirm these findings.
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.