ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2026
Effect of IV midazolam premedication before anesthesia on post-recovery outcomes in orthognathic surgery: a double blind randomized clinical trial.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 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
objectiveOrthognathic surgery is a complex maxillofacial procedure designed to correct skeletal jaw deformities, improving both functional and aesthetic outcomes. Despite its efficacy, the procedure carries risks of postoperative complications, including agitation, shivering, nausea, and intraoperative recall. Midazolam, a short-acting benzodiazepine with anxiolytic and amnestic properties, is frequently used as a premedication. This study aims to evaluate the effect of midazolam on postoperative recovery outcomes in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery.
methodsIn this double-blind randomized clinical trial, 56 healthy patients scheduled for orthognathic surgery were enrolled. The participants were assigned to receive either intravenous midazolam (0.1 mg/kg) or a normal saline placebo at the onset of anesthesia induction. A standardized anesthesia protocol using propofol and remifentanil was maintained for all patients. The measured outcomes included the incidence and severity of postoperative agitation, shivering, nausea, and surgical recall. Also, intraoperative blood loss, recovery duration, and ICU admission rates were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U, Independent T-tests, and Chi-square tests as appropriate (P < 0.05).
resultsThe two groups were comparable regarding demographic data, ASA classification, and surgical duration (p > 0.05). No significant differences were found in median intraoperative blood loss (350 mL in the midazolam group vs. 300 mL in the control group; p = 0.190) or median recovery duration (60 min for both groups; P = 0.204). Although the midazolam group showed lower frequencies of agitation, shivering, and nausea, these differences did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05). Surgical recall was reported in 3.6% of the midazolam group compared to 10.7% in the control group (P > 0.05). No adverse pharmacological events or significant respiratory depressions were recorded in either cohort.
conclusionPre-induction administration of IV midazolam did not decrease the incidence of postoperative complications such as agitation, shivering, or nausea.
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.