Efficacy of buccal versus intranasal route of administration of midazolam spray in behavior management of preschool dental patients

dc.AffiliationOctober University for modern sciences and Arts (MSA) 
dc.contributor.authorMowafy, Yousr N
dc.contributor.authorWahba, Nadia A
dc.contributor.authorGhoneim, Tamer M
dc.contributor.authorMahmoud, Ghada M
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-11T09:19:55Z
dc.date.available2021-12-11T09:19:55Z
dc.date.issued2021-12
dc.description.abstractObjective: To assess the efficacy of aerosolized midazolam, introduced through buccal versus intranasal mucosa in managing uncooperative children undergoing dental treatment. Method and materials: A crossover randomized controlled clinical trial included 36 children aged 3 to 5 years, rated I or II according to the Frankl scale and ASA I or II. Each child fulfilled the requirement of having a dental condition that needed treatment in two dental settings. They were randomly assigned to one of two groups; either buccal or intranasal aerosolized midazolam was administered at the first visit. The alternate route was implemented with a 1-week washout period in the second visit. Drug acceptance and time until optimum sedation were measured. Crying, sleeping, head resistance, and child overall behavior were assessed using modified Houpt scale. Results: In total, 34 patients (95 %) were drowsy on optimum sedation. There was a statistically higher acceptance of buccal midazolam (P < .001). Onset of optimum sedation was more rapid for the intranasal group, with a mean of 15.50 +/- 4.226 minutes (P < .001), while in the buccal group the mean was 22.97 +/- 4.582 minutes. No statistical differences were recorded between the two groups in all behavior rating scales, except for crying where the intranasal group was statistically higher (P = .010). Regarding the overall behavior, there was no significant difference recorded between the two groups (P = .204). Conclusion: Aerosolized buccal midazolam was more tolerated by the patients. However, intranasal aerosolized midazolam had a more rapid onset of sedation. Both buccal and intranasal administrations of aerosolized midazolam are safe and effectiveen_US
dc.description.urihttps://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=22964&tip=sid&clean=0
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.b1702197
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.b1702197
dc.identifier.urihttps://bit.ly/3pRfqZz
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherQUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO INC, 4350 CHANDLER DRIVE, HANOVER PARK, IL 60133 USAen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesQUINTESSENCE INTERNATIONAL;Volume: 52 Issue: 10 Pages: 858-866
dc.subjectaerosolizeden_US
dc.subjectbuccal routeen_US
dc.subjectintranasal routeen_US
dc.subjectmidazolamen_US
dc.subjectsedationen_US
dc.subjectCONSCIOUS SEDATIONen_US
dc.subjectCLINICAL-TRIALen_US
dc.subjectNITROUS-OXIDEen_US
dc.subjectCHILDRENen_US
dc.subjectPREMEDICATIONen_US
dc.titleEfficacy of buccal versus intranasal route of administration of midazolam spray in behavior management of preschool dental patientsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
avatar_scholar_256.png.jpg.jpg.jpg
Size:
1.75 KB
Format:
Joint Photographic Experts Group/JPEG File Interchange Format (JFIF)
Description:

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
51 B
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: