SynthesisEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2026
Intranasal versus sublingual sedation in pediatric dentistry: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundEffective and well-tolerated sedation is critical for managing anxiety and uncooperative behaviors in pediatric dental patients. The intranasal and sublingual routes offer needle-free alternatives to oral or intravenous sedation; however, their comparative performance in dental settings remains underexplored.
objectiveTo systematically compare the efficacy, onset time, and child cooperation outcomes of intranasal and sublingual sedative agents in pediatric dental patients.
methodsA systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for English language studies published between 2000 and 2025. Both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies evaluating intranasal versus sublingual sedation in children undergoing dental procedures were included in this review. The primary outcomes were successful sedation and child cooperation during the procedure. Secondary outcomes included onset time, route acceptance, and adverse events. Data were synthesized narratively, and meta-analysis was conducted where feasible. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies.
results28 studies involving more than 1500 children were included in this review. Sedation success rates were high for both routes (~ 94% intranasal and ~ 93% sublingual), with no statistically significant differences between them. Behavioral scores and anxiety reduction were equivalent across routes. Intranasal sedation produced a significantly faster onset (mean difference: ~ 4.5 min; p < 0.001), whereas sublingual administration was significantly better accepted by children (p = 0.001-0.01).
conclusionsIntranasal and sublingual sedation routes are equally effective and safe for pediatric dental care. Intranasal delivery offers a faster onset, whereas sublingual administration is more acceptable in children. Clinicians may individualize route selection based on child temperament, procedural urgency, and environmental considerations without compromising sedation efficacy or safety. TRAIL REGISTRATION: INPLASY 202550016.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41513911What 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.