• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.53-61
• /
• 2006

When routine behavior control is impossible, midazolam is often used for sedation, because it has wide margin of safety, relatively few side-effects and multiple route of administration. Although intramuscular administration of all administration route is frequently used, it is a major source of anxiety, discomfort, and trauma in children. To the contrary, oral administration of midazolam is easily administered and accepted by children. But, it's therapeutic drug concentration has not been established. The purpose of this study was to compare sedation effect and physiologic parameter of oral midazolam which palliate demerits of intramuscular administration in sedating young pediatric patients with intramuscular midazolam Twelve negative children, mean age 62.5 months, who needed at least two separate restorative visits, requiring local anesthesia participated in this study On every visit, one of the following 2 different sedative regimen was given : (1) 0.30mg/kg midazolam by intramuscular administration (2) 0.75mg/kg by oral administration. Physiologic parameter(oxygen saturation, heart rate) was recorded by ten procedure and behavior was videotaped and rated using Ohio State University Behavior Rating Scale and Automated Counting System by one investigator, blind to administration route The analyzed sedative effect of oral midazolam resulted in good sedative effect, comparing to intramuscular route, And there is no statistically difference between oral and intramuscular administration of midazolam (p>0.05).

• Journal of The Korean Dental Society of Anesthesiology
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.27-31
• /
• 2011

We report two cases of accidental overdoses of intramuscular midazolam used for a conscious sedation. A 4-year-old boy with dental caries was scheduled for treatment under conscious sedation. The pedodontist prescribed midazolam ($dormicum^{(R)}$ 5 mg / 5 ml) 2 ml (2 mg) by verbal order to hygienist. The hygienist instead of the pedodontist wrote a prescription for midazolam ($dormicum^{(R)}$ 15 mg / 3 ml) 2 ml (10 mg). The inexperienced nurse gave an injection to his buttock as prescription. The child fell into a deep sedation. A 4-year-old boy with dental caries was scheduled for treatment under conscious sedation. The inexperienced pedodontist gave an injection to his buttock midazolam ($dormicum^{(R)}$ 15 mg / 3 ml) 3 ml (15 mg) instead of midazolam ($dormicum^{(R)}$ 5 mg / 5 ml) 3 ml (3 mg). The child fell into a deep sedation. Both cases had no complications, but the accidents happened as a result of the inexperienced dental staffs. The five times midazoalm instead of the intended doses was inadvertently given intramuscularly, fortunately caused no harm in our cases. However, the situations suggest that we should carefully check the dosage and review the correct procedures, even when using a drug that is considered to be familiar with most practitioners.

• Journal of Veterinary Clinics
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.317-323
• /
• 2009

This study was performed to evaluate the effect of intravenous administration of glycopyrrolate on cardiovascular and respiratory system in dogs given intravenous medetomidine (20 ${\mu}g$/kg) and intramuscular midazolam (0.3 mg/kg) (MM). Prior to administration of MM, glycopyrrolate was administered intravenously at doses of 5 ${\mu}g$/kg (Gly-5), 10 ${\mu}g$/kg (Gly-10) or 20 ${\mu}g$/kg (Gly-20), respectively. For the control group saline was administered intravenously. In the cardiovascular system, HR, BP, RAP, PAWP, CI, SI, SVR, and PVR were measured. RR, $V_T$, $P_{ETCO2}$, and arterial blood gas analysis were measured for respiratory system. Although rapid and satisfied depth of sedation was obtained by MM, life-threatening bradycardia, the outstanding side-effect on cardiovascular system in dogs were observed. This combination also decreased CO and increased SVR, RAP, and PAWP significantly. The bradycardia could be prevented in all the glycopyrrolate treated groups, but tachycardia was observed in Gly-10 and Gly-20 groups. Significant increases in blood pressure were shown in glycopyrrolate treated groups. Also, tachycardia depends on dose of glycopyrrolate, compensating the CO. However, these were not fully reserved. In conclusion, MM combination could induce rapid and satisfied depth of sedation but was not the suitable method for the deep sedation of dogs with cardiovascular or circulatory problems.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.416-426
• /
• 2005

Intravenous sedation have many advantages of rapid onset and recovery, ability of control sedation levels and duration through titration. Midazolam is most commonly used intravenous medication for sedation in pediatrics, endoscopy, oncologic procedures and so on. But in dentistry, midazolam intravenous sedation is usually for adult, and there are few reports for children. Todays, children who need sedation become more and older, intravenous sedation technique is going a matter of concern in pediatric dentistry. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the efficacy of sedation and clinical success for different initial dosage of midazolam in intravenous sedation for pediatric dental patients. 16 healthy children (male 10, female 6), mean age $54.7{\pm}10.7$ months, who needed at least two separate treatment visits requiring local anesthesia were chosen for this study. Every children were taken 0.3mg/kg, maximum 5mg of midazolam by intramuscular route, and then 30~50% $N_2O-O_2$ for 10 minutes was given. On every visits, one of the following 2 different initial dosage was given by intravenous route : (1) Group I : 0.1mg/kg Midazolam (2) Group II : 0.2mg/kg Midazolam. Additional dosage was half of the first dose. Physiologic parameters (oxygen saturation, heart rate, respiratory rate, end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure) was recorded by ten procedure steps. Behavior was videotaped and rated using Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale and Automated Counting System by one investigator, blind to administered dosage. After the treatment, operator evaluated the clinical success. Physiologic parameters were stable and within normal range during treatment in both groups. The analyzed sedative effect, in behavioral evaluation, ratio of favorable Quiet was higher in group II, and clinical success rate of group II was better than group I. Induction time was rapid in group II, and recovery time was rapid in group I. And there was no statistically difference between two groups in every results.