| Title |
A comparison of the sedative effect of oral versus nasal midazolam combined with nitrous oxide in uncooperative children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40368-015-0187-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
I. E. Musani, N. V. Chandan |
| Abstract |
To compare a combination of oral midazolam (0.2 mg/kg body weight) and nitrous oxide-oxygen sedation with a combination of intranasal midazolam (0.1 mg/kg body weight) and nitrous oxide-oxygen sedation for effectiveness, patient acceptability and safety profile in controlling the behaviour of uncooperative children. Thirty children, 4-10 years of age, referred for dental treatment were included in the study with a crossover design. Each patient was sedated with a combination of either oral midazolam and nitrous oxide-oxygen sedation or intranasal midazolam and nitrous oxide-oxygen sedation at subsequent dental treatment visits. During the treatment procedure, the study recorded scales for drug acceptability, onset of sedation, acceptance of nasal mask, sedation, behavioural, safety, overall behaviour and alertness. RESULTS: The grade of acceptability of midazolam in both groups was consistently good. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the time of onset of sedation, which was significantly quicker with the intranasal administration of midazolam. The mean time of onset for oral midazolam was 20.1 (17-25) min and for intranasal midazolam 12.1 (8-18) min. The efficacy profile of the present study included: acceptance of nasal mask, sedation score, crying levels, motor movements and overall behaviour scores. The results did not show any statistically significant differences. All the parameters were highly satisfactory. The difference in alertness was statistically significant (p value <0.05), being higher in the intranasal group than the oral group and suggestive of faster recovery using intranasal midazolam. The intranasal route of midazolam administration has a quick onset of action and a quick recovery of the patient from sedation as compared to the oral route of midazolam administration. Midazolam administered through the intranasal route is as effective as the oral route at a lower dosage. Therefore, it is an effective alternative to oral route for a paediatric dental situation. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 43% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2015.
All research outputs
#5,887,209
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#49
of 281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,678
of 264,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 281 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them