Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
   
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |

 

Login  | Users Online: 1261  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 



 
 Table of Contents  
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 105-120  

Sedative and behavioral effects of intranasal midazolam in comparison with other administrative routes in children undergoing dental treatment – A systematic review


Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Submission30-May-2020
Date of Decision11-Aug-2020
Date of Acceptance02-Nov-2020
Date of Web Publication13-Jun-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sujatha Somasundaram
Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha University, 162, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai - 600 077, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_470_20

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Aim: The aim of this study was to systematically identify and evaluate the available literature on the effectiveness of intranasal midazolam sedation compared with midazolam administered through other routes in the sedation and behavior management of children during dental treatment. Materials and Methods: The search was done using electronic databases such as PubMed Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, LILACS, ScienceDirect, and SIGLE. All studies comparing the sedative effect and behavior management effectiveness of intranasal midazolam with midazolam administered through other routes in children were included. Results: Electronic database search identified 163 articles, out of which 143 were excluded after reading titles and removing duplication. The remaining 20 studies were evaluated in detail. A final of 13 studies were included based on the inclusion criteria. Among the 13 studies included in the present review, a high risk of bias was noted in all the 13 articles. There was no adequate blinding of personnel and participants in the study, allocation concealment was improper and presence of inadequate blinding of the outcome assessment. . Statistically, no significant difference was observed between intranasal midazolam and other midazolam routes on behavior and sedation level in the studies included in this review. Conclusion: Limited studies are available pertaining to the sedative and behavioral effects of intranasal midazolam, and thus, this review recommends need for more research evaluating the sedative effect of intranasal midazolam in comparison with midazolam administered through other routes in the behavior management of children during dental treatment.

Keywords: Conscious sedation, midazolam, pediatric dentistry, systematic review


How to cite this article:
Preethy NA, Somasundaram S. Sedative and behavioral effects of intranasal midazolam in comparison with other administrative routes in children undergoing dental treatment – A systematic review. Contemp Clin Dent 2021;12:105-20

How to cite this URL:
Preethy NA, Somasundaram S. Sedative and behavioral effects of intranasal midazolam in comparison with other administrative routes in children undergoing dental treatment – A systematic review. Contemp Clin Dent [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jul 30];12:105-20. Available from: https://www.contempclindent.org/text.asp?2021/12/2/105/318297




   Introduction Top


Over the years, pediatric dentists have always been faced with the difficult task of managing dental fear and anxiety which is an obstacle to the successful treatment of children and impeding or even precluding the quality of dental care.[1],[2] Dental fear is considered to be a normal emotional reaction to one or more specific threatening stimuli in the dental situation. Dental anxiety denotes a state of apprehension that something dreadful is going to happen in relation to dental treatment and is coupled with the sense of losing control.[3] It has been observed that children are more anxious and uncooperative between 3 and 7 years of age[4] and this anxiety was found to decrease with age.[5] The overall worldwide prevalence of dental anxiety among children ranges from 3% to 43%.[6]

Behavior management serves as the cornerstone factor setting apart pediatric dentistry from all other dental specialties.[7] An important point to be noted is the changing society and population's attitude toward interaction with children that the older methods of physical restraints such as hand-over-mouth exercise or the use of physical restraints have gained less eminence.[8] The guidelines proposed by the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry has included both pharmacological and nonpharmacological methods for the behavior management of anxious children.[9]

Pharmacological management techniques should be considered in cases where the nonpharmacological or psychological behavior management techniques prove unproductive.[10] Pharmacological behavior management is broadly divided into sedation and general anesthesia. Several factors influence the decision on the type of pharmacological behavior management to be provided such as age of the patient, preoperative anxiety, extent of patient's dental needs, risk involved with the pharmacological management, safety, parental expectation, and cost.[11] According to AAPD,[12] the goals of sedation are to (a) guard the welfare and safety of the patient; (b) minimize physical discomfort and pain; (c) control anxiety, minimize psychological trauma, and maximize the potential for amnesia; (d) control behavior and/or movements so as to allow safe completion of procedure; and (e) return the patient to a state in which safe discharge from medical supervision is possible as determined by the recognized criteria.

Sedation was primarily discussed under conscious and deep sedation.[13] However, the modern-day concept modifies the broad term conscious sedation to (i) minimal sedation previously called anxiolysis and (ii) moderate sedation previously called conscious sedation. Conscious sedation is the use of a drug or drugs to produce a depressed state of central nervous system during which the patient remains conscious, retains protective reflexes, maintains a patent airway, and has the ability to understand and respond to verbal commands enabling the treatment to be carried out. Minimal sedation is a drug-induced state wherein the patient can respond normally to verbal commands. Moderate sedation refers to a state of drug-induced depression of consciousness during which patients respond purposefully to verbal commands.[14]

Wide varieties of drugs are available for sedation in pediatric dentistry. The type and the route of administration of the drugs lead to a variability in their efficacy and effectiveness. Among them, midazolam – a newer generation benzodiazepine – has been mentioned as potentially the ideal sedative agent[15] for its wide toxic/therapeutic ratio and safety margin.[10] It can be administered orally, intranasally, sublingually, rectally, or intravenously and has a rapid elimination half-life, produces anterograde amnesia,[16] is a muscle relaxant, and yields no active metabolites.[17] Midazolam when administered intranasally has a faster onset of action as it avoids the hepatic first-pass metabolism and gets absorbed through the cribriform plate into the brain resulting in an increased bioavailability level.[18],[19] In the study done by Fukuta et al., intranasal midazolam provided a sedative effect to those children who earlier displayed a combative behavior.[20],[21] Thus, intranasal sedation by midazolam has gained popularity in the recent years as the other modes of administration such as the oral and rectal administration have a slower onset of sedation[22],[23] and parenteral administration leads to anxiety, distress, and trauma in children and it is always better to avoid injections in pediatrics whenever possible.[17] Various studies have been done to study the effectiveness of midazolam administered through various routes and at different concentrations.

However, there is little evidence reviewing the comparative studies of intranasal midazolam and other routes of midazolam. The objective of this study was to systematically identify and evaluate the available literature on the effectiveness of intranasal midazolam sedation compared with midazolam administered through other routes in the sedation and behavior management of children.


   Materials and Methods Top


The review was done according to the guidelines given by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

PICO analysis

  • Population: Children below 12 years of age undergoing dental treatment under conscious sedation
  • Intervention: Midazolam administered through other routes: Oral, rectal, intravenous, intramuscular, sublingual, submucosal, and buccal
  • Comparison: Intranasal midazolam sedation
  • Outcome: Sedative effect, effect on anxiety, and behavior.


Inclusion criteria

  • Studies involving children receiving dental treatment under sedation
  • Studies comparing the sedation level and/or behavior management effectiveness between intranasal midazolam and midazolam administered through other routes: Oral, rectal, intravenous, intramuscular, buccal, sublingual, and submucosal
  • Studies published in English language.


Exclusion criteria

  • Studies involving adolescents or adults
  • Studies involving comparison of midazolam in various routes of administration for any treatment other than routine dental treatment
  • Studies involving midazolam as a premedication before general anesthesia or other such procedures
  • Studies evaluating only adverse effects, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of midazolam.
  • Ongoing studies that have not yet been published.


Search strategy

To identify the studies to be included for evaluation in systematic review in detail, the following search strategies were developed for each database searched:

  1. The Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (all types of study design published till December 2019)
  2. PubMed (all types of study design published till December 2019)
  3. LILACS (all types of study design published till December 2019)
  4. ScienceDirect (all types of study design published till December 2019)
  5. Google Scholar (all types of study design published till December 2019)
  6. SIGLE (all types of study design published till December 2019).


PubMed search strategy

Advanced search of PubMed search engine was used using the following keywords:

(Children below 12 years) OR Pediatric dental patients) OR uncooperative children) OR anxious children) OR pediatric dentistry) OR medically compromised patients) OR children with Down's syndrome) OR autistic children) OR children with cerebral palsy) OR children with physical disability) OR mentally challenged children)) AND (oral midazolam sedation) OR oral versed) OR oral midazolam hydrochloride syrup) OR oral mezolam)) OR oral dormicum) OR oral miben) OR oral hypnovoel) OR intramuscular seizalam) OR intramuscular mezolam) OR intramuscular versed) OR intramuscular midazolamum) OR intramuscular dormicum) OR intramuscular miben) OR intramuscular hypnovoel) OR intravenous mezolam) OR intravenous versed) OR intravenous dormicum) OR intravenous midazolamum) OR intravenous miben) OR intravenous hypnovel) OR intramuscular midazolam) OR intravenous midazolam) OR buccal midazolam) OR buccal buccolam) OR buccal versed) OR submucosal midazolam) OR submucosal versed) OR submucosal mezolam) OR submucosal midazolamum) OR submucosal dormicum) OR submucosal miben) OR submucosal hypnovel) OR sublingual midazolam) OR sublingual mezolam) OR sublingual versed) OR sublingual midazolamum) OR sublingual dormicum) OR sublingual miben) OR sublingual hypnovel) AND (intranasal midazolam) OR inhalation midazolam) OR intranasal midacip) OR intranasal mezolam) OR intranasal versed) OR intranasal midazolamum) OR intranasal dormicum) OR intranasal miben) OR intranasal hypnovel) OR intranasal atomized midazolam spray) AND (behaviour management) OR behavior) OR management) OR managing) OR sedative effect) OR sedation level) OR procedural sedation) OR conscious sedation) OR mild sedation) OR minimal sedation) OR anxiolysis) OR houpt behaviour rating scale) OR frankl behaviour rating scale) OR FLACC) OR Venham's scale) OR visual analog scale) OR VAS) OR behaviour profile rating scale) OR Kurosu behaviour evaluation scale) OR ramsay sedation scale) OR richmond agitation sedation scale) OR state behaviour rating scale) OR bispectral index monitoring).

The search yielded 84 studies.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

One author (NAP) carried out the search strategy for the individual databases. The total number of titles obtained was scanned and evaluated independently by two authors, NAP and SS, to identify the relevant studies. The studies duplicated in the different databases were excluded. In case of any disagreement between the two authors, the final decision was obtained by discussion between the two authors. Abstracts of the studies were evaluated when complete information regarding the groups and participants included was not mentioned in the title. The abstract evaluation was carried out independently by two authors, NAP and SS, to identify the final studies to be included based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text articles were evaluated when the abstracts did not provide adequate information regarding the groups compared. Hand search was done and the reference lists of all the full-text articles were evaluated to identify any other studies which were not included in the electronic search. The PRISMA flowchart describes the number of records identified and screened at different phases of the review process [Figure 1]. All the studies not relevant to the subject were excluded and the reasons for the exclusion were mentioned [Table 1]. The final studies included were further assessed for the quality of studies following the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review. This was done by both the authors independently and any discrepancy was resolved by discussion between both the authors.
Figure 1: PRISMA flowchart showing included studies

Click here to view
Table 1: Characteristics of excluded studies

Click here to view


Data extraction and management

Data for the included studies were evaluated for the characteristics of the study. The following characteristics were included:

  • Author and year of study
  • Study design
  • Sample size and age group
  • Route of midazolam administration
  • Outcome assessed.


The variables observed were mentioned [Table 2]. A detailed evaluation of the variables observed in the study was noted by their mean values and statistical significance.
Table 2: Variables of interest

Click here to view


Assessment of the quality of included studies

The quality of the included studies was assessed using the guidelines given by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review. The parameters used to evaluate the included studies are as follows:

  • Random sequence generation (selection bias)
  • Allocation concealment (selection bias)
  • Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
  • Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
  • Free of Incomplete outcome data assessment (attrition)
  • Free from baseline imbalance (reporting bias)
  • Adequate reliability.


Individual parameter was assessed for high risk, low risk, and unclear risk [Table 3]. The final risk of bias of individual study was determined as low risk if all the studies showed low risk for the individual parameters. In case of high risk or unclear risk for one or two parameters, moderate risk was considered for the included study. If more than 2 parameters showed high risk or unclear risk, the included study showed to have a high risk of bias.
Table 3: Criteria for assessment of risk of bias

Click here to view



   Results Top


Study selection

The systematic search from the electronic databases of PubMed yielded 84 studies, Cochrane Library yielded 51 studies, Google Scholar yielded 8 studies, and ScienceDirect yielded 19 studies. No studies were obtained from the database of LILACS and SIGLE and 1 study was obtained from hand searching. After removal of duplicate studies and scanning of the titles of the studies, 20 studies were identified and from that 7 studies did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded from the systematic review. After scanning of abstracts, 7 articles were eliminated as they did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text articles for the other 13 studies were evaluated further for better evaluation. The bibliography of these full-text articles was scanned to include studies apart from the electronic databases. A total of 13 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the present systematic review. The characteristics of the included studies and its results were tabulated and evaluated [Table 4] and [Table 5]. Based on the study characteristics, risk of bias was assessed for the included studies [Table 6] and [Figure 2] and [Figure 3].
Table 4: Characteristics of included studies

Click here to view
Table 5: Results of included studies

Click here to view
Table 6: Quality of assessment of the included studies

Click here to view
Figure 2: Risk of bias summary of all included studies

Click here to view
Figure 3: Risk of bias graph presented as percentage of all the included studies

Click here to view


According to the study results, behavioral management effectiveness was assessed in all the 13 studies.[7],[8],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34] Among these, in only one study,[8] a statistically significant difference in the Houpt's score was found during administration of local anesthesia and after 15 min in favor of intranasal sedation (P < 0.05). However, no statistically significant difference was found after 30 min. All other studies showed no statistically significant difference between the groups in the overall behavior rating scores.[7],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34]

Only two studies comparatively evaluated the sedative effectiveness of intranasal with other midazolam routes.[7],[27] The level of sedation was evaluated by Musani and Chandan and Özen et al.[7],[27] Musani and Chandan determined sedation level using the Ellis Sedation Scale. Özen et al. used the Bispectral Index System to estimate the level of sedation. No statistically significant difference was observed in the level of sedation between intranasal midazolam and oral midazolam in relation to the Ellis Sedation Scale and Bispectral Index Monitoring System, respectively.[7],[27]


   Discussion Top


Conscious sedation is considered as an effective alternative in children who are anxious or exhibit uncooperative behavior and in whom the basic behavior management strategies fail to produce the desired effect.[35] It is considered to be an optimal sedation technique if it is accessible and relatively easy to use, has a noted effect, accepted by both children and parents alike, and produces less complications.[36] The onset, depth, and duration of sedation are characterized by critical factors such as the type of drug and its route of administration.[37]

Of late, intranasal route of administration has gained popularity in the field of conscious sedation in terms of rapid onset of action which corresponds to the advantage of intravenous and intramuscular sedation.[38] This rapid onset of action can be ascribed to the rich vascular supply of nasal mucosa and rapid achievement of the cerebrospinal fluid level of the drug due to communication with the subarachnoid space through the olfactory nerve.[39] Studies have also reported the increased advantage of inhalation and intranasal route over other sedative routes in that there is a more controlled maintenance of depth and duration of the sedation.[40],[41]

Midazolam has been the most common agent evaluated for the sedative effect and behavior management in several studies. Due to the inconsiderable amount of literature being published on the various administrative routes of midazolam for sedation, there is a lack of consensus on the effectiveness of other routes of midazolam administration compared to intranasal midazolam route. There is no existing literature review highlighting the sedative effect and behavior management effectiveness of intranasal midazolam. Hence, the present systematic review compares the intranasal midazolam sedation to provide an insight on its sedative and behavior management effectiveness and compare it with the other routes of midazolam sedation.

The present systematic review includes 13 studies. The outcome for all the studies was assessed using sedation level or behavior rating scale. Venham's Clinical Anxiety Scale was used by two studies to assess the anxiety of the child.[24],[25] A particular study used the Global Behavior Rating Scale[26] and another study used a modified scale to classify behavior/response to treatment under sedation.[27] Eight studies used Houpt's/Modified Houpt's Behavior Rating Scale to assess the behavior outcome.[7],[8],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33] One study used a modified version of scale developed by Fukuta et al., in addition to the Modified Houpt's Behavior Rating Scale to assess the behavior of the child.[29]

The level of sedation was assessed by Musani and Chandan and Özen et al.[7],[27] Musani and Chandan assessed sedation using the Ellis Sedation Scale. Özen et al. used the Bispectral Index System to assess the level of sedation.

Seven included studies evaluated behavior scale by comparing oral midazolam with intranasal midazolam.[7],[8],[26],[27],[31],[32],[34] Two included studies compared buccal midazolam with intranasal midazolam to assess behavior outcome.[28],[33] Three included studies assessed behavior/anxiety management effectiveness comparing sublingual midazolam with intranasal midazolam.[7],[24],[25] One study compares intramuscular midazolam route compared to intranasal route for assessing behavior in children.[29]

There was no statistically significant difference in the level of sedation between intranasal midazolam and oral midazolam in relation to the Ellis sedation Scale and Bispectral Index Monitoring System, respectively.[7],[27] In the Ellis Sedation Scale, score 1 was observed in 23.3% of the intranasal midazolam group and 26.67% of the oral midazolam group; score 2 was observed in 60% of the intranasal midazolam group and 63.3% in the oral midazolam group. Score 3 was observed in 16.67% of the intranasal midazolam group and 10% of the oral midazolam group, whereas scores 4 and 5 were not observed in both the groups. However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the groups.[7]

Gentz et al.[34] used oral midazolam combination (+meperidine/+hydroxyzine/+meperidine,/+promethazine) in one of the intervention groups. Similarly, Hartgraves and Primosch[26] used oral midazolam in hydroxyzine pamoate suspension in the intervention group. And also, Fallahinejad Ghajari et al.[8] evaluated combination sedatives in two different routes of drug administration. The control group was not purely intranasal midazolam but in combination with ketamine, and the intervention group was not just oral midazolam but in combination with atropine and ketamine. These have to be taken into consideration while observing the results of the studies.

The quality of assessment was done based on the Cochrane database with the seven criteria of assessment.[42] The criteria to assess the review were randomized generation of sequence, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, free of incomplete data outcome, free from baseline imbalance, and adequate reliability. In the present review, a high risk was observed as blinding of the participants as well as the personnel was not adequate.[7],[24],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[33],[34] Hence, there is a need for more studies in the future free from any bias.

Another limitation is the less number of sample size evaluated in ten of the included[7],[8],[24],[25],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33] studies. There were no studies available comparing intravenous and rectal midazolam with intranasal midazolam for sedation during routine dental treatment for children. Thus, more studies are required with a larger sample size.

The present systematic review recommends more research in the field of sedation as it will assist in managing the child in the dental operatory. Furthermore, there is a need for more studies comparing the different modes of administration and types of administration devices used to evaluate the sedative and behavior management effectiveness.


   Conclusion Top


This systematic review concludes that there is no statistically significant difference between intranasal midazolam and other midazolam routes on the outcome of behavior and sedation level. It is recommended to conduct substantial research in the field of sedation to devise a better and safer clinical protocol for the administration of any sedative agent to a child, thereby assisting pediatric dentists in the successful management of child behavior in the dental operatory.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
D'Alessandro G, Alkhamis N, Mattarozzi K, Mazzetti M, Piana G. Fear of dental pain in Italian children: Child personality traits and parental dental fear. J Public Health Dent 2016;76:179-83.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Navit S, Johri N, Khan SA, Singh RK, Chadha D, Navit P, et al. Effectiveness and comparison of various audio distraction aids in management of anxious dental paediatric patients. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:ZC05-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Klingberg G. Pharmacological approach to the management of dental anxiety in children Comments from a Scandinavian. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002;12:357-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Yang C, Zou H, Zou J. Analysis on dental uncooperative behaviors of the first-visit children in clinic. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2011;29:501-4, 508.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Locker D, Liddell A. Clinical correlates of dental anxiety among older adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992;20:372-5.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Folayan MO, Idehen EE, Ojo OO. The modulating effect of culture on the expression of dental anxiety in children: A literature review. Int J Paediatr Dent 2004;14:241-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Musani IE, Chandan NV. A comparison of the sedative effect of oral versus nasal midazolam combined with nitrous oxide in uncooperative children. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2015;16:417-24.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Fallahinejad Ghajari M, Ansari G, Soleymani AA, Shayeghi S, Fotuhi Ardakani F. Comparison of Oral and Intranasal Midazolam/Ketamine Sedation in 3-6-year-old Uncooperative Dental Patients. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2015;9:61-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Clinical Affairs Committee-Behavior Management Subcommittee, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on behavior guidance for the pediatric dental patient. Pediatr Dent 2015;37:57-70.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Al-Zahrani AM, Wyne AH, Sheta SA. Comparison of oral midazolam with a combination of oral midazolam and nitrous oxide-oxygen inhalation in the effectiveness of dental sedation for young children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2009;27:9-16.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
11.
Wilson S. Pharmacologic behavior management for pediatric dental treatment. Pediatr Clin North Am 2000;47:1159-75.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Coté CJ, Wilson S, Work Group on Sedation. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: An update. Pediatrics 2006;118:2587-602.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Wilson S, Creedon RL, George M, Troutman K. A history of sedation guidelines: Where we are headed in the future. Pediatr Dent 1996;18:194-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Hosey MT, UK National Clinical Guidelines in Pediatric Dentistry. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry. Managing anxious children: The use of conscious sedation in paediatric dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002;12:359-72.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Papineni A, Lourenço-Matharu L, Ashley PF. Safety of oral midazolam sedation use in paediatric dentistry: A review. Int J Paediatr Dent 2014;24:2-13.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Kupietzky A, Holan G, Shapira J. Intranasal midazolam better at effecting amnesia after sedation than oral hydroxyzine: A pilot study. Pediatr Dent 1996;18:32-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Kupietzky A, Houpt MI. Midazolam: A review of its use for conscious sedation of children. Pediatr Dent 1993;15:237-41.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Olivier JC, Djilani M, Fahmy S, Couet W. In situ nasal absorption of midazolam in rats. Int J Pharm 2001;213:187-92.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Walbergh EJ, Wills RJ, Eckhert J. Plasma concentrations of midazolam in children following intranasal administration. Anesthesiology 1991;74:233-5.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Fukuta O, Braham RL, Yanase H, Kurosu K. The sedative effects of intranasal midazolam administration in the dental treatment of patients with mental disabilities. Part 2: Optimal concentration of intranasal midazolam. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1994;18:259-65.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Fukuta O, Braham RL, Yanase H, Atsumi N, Kurosu K. The sedative effect of intranasal midazolam administration in the dental treatment of patients with mental disabilities. Part 1. The effect of a 0.2 mg/kg dose. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1993;17:231-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Lejus C, Renaudin M, Testa S, Malinovsky JM, Vigier T, Souron R. Midazolam for premedication in children: Nasal vs. rectal administration. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1997;14:244-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Wilton NC, Leigh J, Rosen DR, Pandit UA. Preanesthetic sedation of preschool children using intranasal midazolam. Anesthesiology 1988;69:972-4.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Shanmugaavel AK, Asokan S, John JB, Priya PR, Raaja MT. Comparison of drug acceptance and anxiety between intranasal and sublingual midazolam sedation. Pediatr Dent 2016;38:106-11.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Shanmugaavel AK, Asokan S, Baby JJ, Priya G, Gnana Devi J. Comparison of behavior and dental anxiety during intranasal and sublingual midazolam sedation A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;40:81-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Hartgraves PM, Primosch RE. An evaluation of oral and nasal midazolam for pediatric dental sedation. ASDC J Dent Child 1994;61:175-81.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Özen B, Malamed SF, Cetiner S, Özalp N, Özer L, Altun C. Outcomes of moderate sedation in paediatric dental patients. Aust Dent J 2012;57:144-50.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Sunbul N, Delvi MB, Zahrani TA, Salama F. Buccal versus intranasal midazolam sedation for pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 2014;36:483-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Shashikiran ND, Reddy SV, Yavagal CM. Conscious sedation An artist's science! An Indian experience with midazolam. J Indian Soc Pedodont Prev Dent 2006;24:7.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Shanmugaavel AK, Asokan S, Priya G, Raja T. Comparison of the onset of action and behavioral responses to intranasal and sublingual routes of midazolam sedation in children A randomized controlled trial. Oral Health Dent Manag 2015;14:360.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Lee-Kim SJ, Fadavi S, Punwani I, Koerber A. Nasal versus oral midazolam sedation for pediatric dental patients. J Dent Child (Chic) 2004;71:126-30.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Johnson E, Briskie D, Majewski R, Edwards S, Reynolds P. The physiologic and behavioral effects of oral and intranasal midazolam in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent 2010;32:229-38.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Chopra R, Mittal M, Bansal K, Chaudhuri P. Buccal midazolam spray as an alternative to intranasal route for conscious sedation in pediatric dentistry. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013;38:171-3.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Gentz R, Casamassimo P, Amini H, Claman D, Smiley M. Safety and efficacy of 3 pediatric midazolam moderate sedation regimens. Anesth Prog 2017;64:66-72.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Al-Rakaf H, Bello LL, Turkustani A, Adenubi JO. Intra-nasal midazolam in conscious sedation of young paediatric dental patients. Int J Paediatr Dent 2001;11:33-40.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Uldum B, Hallonsten AL, Poulsen S. Midazolam conscious sedation in a large Danish municipal dental service for children and adolescents. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008;18:256-61.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Bahetwar SK, Pandey RK, Saksena AK, Chandra G. A comparative evaluation of intranasal midazolam, ketamine and their combination for sedation of young uncooperative pediatric dental patients: A triple blind randomized crossover trial. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011;35:415-20.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Huang CH, Kimura R, Nassar RB, Hussain A. Mechanism of nasal absorption of drugs I: Physicochemical parameters influencing the rate of in situ nasal absorption of drugs in rats. J Pharm Sci 1985;74:608-11.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Jackson RT, Tigges J, Arnold W. Subarachnoid space of the CNS, nasal mucosa, and lymphatic system. Arch Otolaryngol 1979;105:180-4.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Haas DA. Oral and inhalation conscious sedation. Dent Clin North Am 1999;43:341-59.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Subramaniam P, Babu KL, Lakhotia D. Evaluation of nitrous oxide-oxygen and triclofos sodium as conscious sedative agents. J Indian Soc Pedodont Prev Dent 2017;35:156.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2019. p. 728.  Back to cited text no. 42
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed863    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded188    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal