ReviewCureus2026
Nitrous Oxide and Oral Sedation for Managing Dental Anxiety in Children: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Comparative evaluation of behavior management techniques on anxiety levels in pediatric dental patients.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Current practices and perceived effectiveness of alternative behavioral management techniques for pediatric dental anxiety: a cross-sectional survey of dentists in Spain.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dental anxiety is common among children and frequently leads to avoidance of dental treatment, premature tooth loss, and broader health concerns such as bite misalignment. This systematic review examines nitrous oxide-oxygen (N₂O/O₂) and oral sedation (e.g., midazolam, hydroxyzine) as minimally invasive options for children aged 2-12 years, using the Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework to guide analysis. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus (2015-2025), including 25 studies (n≈12,500 participants) with randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, and reviews. Risk of bias was assessed via Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2); qualitative synthesis was chosen due to heterogeneity. N₂O excelled in mild anxiety (85-92% efficacy, <5% complications like nausea, rapid 30-60 s onset), making it ideal for short procedures with full recovery in five minutes. Oral sedation showed 70-85% success for moderate cases, with midazolam offering strong amnesia but 5-10% paradoxical excitation; hydroxyzine suited low-risk adjuncts. Combinations boosted outcomes to 88-95%, cutting dropouts by 40-50%. Safety was high overall (<5% adverse events), with N₂O safer for outpatient use. Limitations include protocol variability and limited RCTs. Aligned with the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) guidelines, these methods promote tailored, office-based care to enhance equity and reduce general anesthesia (GA) needs. Future RCTs should standardize metrics and explore adjuncts like dexmedetomidine. In practice, integrating with behavioral techniques fosters better cooperation and lifelong oral health.
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.