Comparative study between novel sedative drug (dexmedetomidine) versus midazolam–propofol for conscious sedation in pediatric patients undergoing oro-dental procedures
Al Taher, W., Mansour, E., El Shafei, M. (2010). Comparative study between novel sedative drug (dexmedetomidine) versus midazolam–propofol for conscious sedation in pediatric patients undergoing oro-dental procedures. EKB Journal Management System, 26(4), 299-304. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2010.04.002
Waleed M.A. Al Taher; Emad E. Mansour; Mohamed N. El Shafei. "Comparative study between novel sedative drug (dexmedetomidine) versus midazolam–propofol for conscious sedation in pediatric patients undergoing oro-dental procedures". EKB Journal Management System, 26, 4, 2010, 299-304. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2010.04.002
Al Taher, W., Mansour, E., El Shafei, M. (2010). 'Comparative study between novel sedative drug (dexmedetomidine) versus midazolam–propofol for conscious sedation in pediatric patients undergoing oro-dental procedures', EKB Journal Management System, 26(4), pp. 299-304. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2010.04.002
Al Taher, W., Mansour, E., El Shafei, M. Comparative study between novel sedative drug (dexmedetomidine) versus midazolam–propofol for conscious sedation in pediatric patients undergoing oro-dental procedures. EKB Journal Management System, 2010; 26(4): 299-304. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2010.04.002

Comparative study between novel sedative drug (dexmedetomidine) versus midazolam–propofol for conscious sedation in pediatric patients undergoing oro-dental procedures

Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Volume 26, Issue 4, October 2010, Page 299-304  XML PDF (505.71 K)
DOI: 10.1016/j.egja.2010.04.002
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Waleed M.A. Al Taher; Emad E. Mansour; Mohamed N. El Shafei
Abstract
Objective
A comparative study to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine as a sedative in pediatric dental patients in comparison to the currently used combination of midazolam and propofol.
Methods
Sixty ASA I children (4–10 years old) referred from the outpatient clinic of the pediatric dentistry department for sedation for dental procedures. They were randomly classified into two groups, group I (dexmedetomidine group) was given as 2 μg/kg loading dose over 5 min followed by 0.4 μg/kg/h continuous infusion. Group II (midazolam–propofol group) midazolam was given as 0.05 mg/kg and propofol was given loading dose as 1 mg/kg over 5 min followed by 5 mg/kg/h continuous infusion. Heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate were recorded every 5 min till discharge. The onset of sedation, procedure time, recovery time, discharge time and the need of analgesia were recorded. The incidence of occurrence of adverse effects was observed.
Results
In group I, the mean onset of sedation was significantly longer than in group II, but recovery time was significantly shorter in group I than group II, there are significantly hemodynamics effects in the first 15 min and more incidence of occurrence of side effects in group II than group I. There are more analgesic effects of dexmedetomidine in group I than group II postoperatively.
Conclusion
Dexmedetomidine is safe and effective when used for sedation in pediatric patients undergoing dental procedures.
Keywords
Dexmedetomidine; midazolam; propofol; Sedation for pediatric dentistry
Statistics
Article View: 48
PDF Download: 51