• Journal of The Korean Dental Society of Anesthesiology
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.9-12
• /
• 2013

General anesthesia has been developed in dentistry as a type of management technique to sedate patients who may be uncontrollable or require medical consideration. However, emergency treatment for controlling pain before general anesthesia could be required due to the time for medical evaluation for general anesthesia. There is a greater possibility of developing complications under extended waiting period. A disabled patient who needs dental treatment under general anesthesia underwent pretreatment with intramuscular injection of midazolam and $N_2O-O_2$ inhalation sedation in these cases report.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.47-52
• /
• 2015

Sedation allows patients to maintain their airway independently and respond appropriately to physical stimulation and verbal command while maintaining a minimum depressed level of consciousness. Drugs commonly used for sedation of pediatric dental patients include a combination of chloral hydrate, hydroxyzine, and nitrous oxide-oxygen. Midazolam is a benzodiazepine and currently one of the most commonly used intravenous sedative agents. It can be easily titrated to provide a wide range of sedation, from conscious sedation to deep sedation, and exhibits a wide safety margin without severe respiratory and circulatory depression. At an appropriate dose, it also decreases patient anxiety and induces amnesia. We found that the submucosal administration of midazolam combined with chloral hydrate provided increased sedative effects and decreased the postoperative vomiting response compared with conventional chloral hydrate administration, with no significant difference in physiological responses. The depth of sedation can be titrated using this technique.

• 대한치과마취과학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2001.11a
• /
• pp.61-61
• /
• 2001

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.280-292
• /
• 1997

The purpose of this study was to assess the sedative effect of three kinds of medication for management of the uncooperative 60 children aged from 16 months to 87 months required extensive treatment. The patients were given randomly a dose of 75mg/kg of chloral hydrate and hydroxyzine 25mg orally or 0.5mg/kg of midazolam orally or 0.3mg/kg of midazolam intranasally. All the children were restrained in a Pediwrap and were monitored with Pulse oximeter for assessing the safety of patients. According to rating scale, sleep, crying, movement, and overall behavior were checked for evaluation of the clinical sedative effect. The results were as follows: 1. In the evaluation of sleep, rating scale of chloral hydrate/hydroxyzine was superior to the other group(p<0.05). 2. In the evaluation of crying and movement at beginning of treatment, rating scale of chloral hydrate/hydroxyzine was superior to the other group(p<0.05), but during the treatment, rating scale of each group was not significantly different (p>0.05). 3. In the evaluation of overall behavior, 80% children of chloral hydrate/hydroxyzine were rated good or very good. With the oral and intranasal midazolam, 60% children were rated good or very good respectively. 4. There were no clinical signs of significant cyanosis and respiratory depression. Clinically, chloral hydrate/hydroxyzine was proved to be more effective sedation than any other sedative method. Oral and intranasal midazolam were also safe and effective sedation in young children undergoing pediatric dental procedures.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.87-90
• /
• 2006

Background: There are many ways to provide superior analgesia for postoperative pain after abdominal surgery of which epidural analgesics with opioids and local analgesics are the most useful. In an effort to maximize the level of analgesia and to minimize the side effects, ketamine, midazolam, clonidine, and adrenalin can be co-administrated as an adjuvant. This study examined the analgesic effect and side effects of midazolam compared with those given an epidural injection of bupivacaine, fentanyl and ketamine. Methods: In a double blind randomized controlled trial, 50 patients received either fentanyl $0.3{\mu}g/kg/h$ and ketamine 0.1 mg/kg/h (Group FK) or fentanyl $0.3{\mu}g/kg/h$, ketamine 0.1 mg/kg/h and midazolam 0.4 mg/h (Group FKM), added to 0.125% of bupivacaine at a rate of as much as 2 ml/h, for patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) after low abdominal surgery. Ten minutes before surgery, the patients received either 10 ml of 0.125% bupivacaine with 0.5 mg/kg of ketamine or 10 ml of 0.125% bupivacaine with the same amount of normal saline, added to fentanyl $50{\mu}g$. The pain score and the side effects were recorded at 1, 3, 6, and 24 hours after surgery. Results: There was no difference in the pain score except for the VAS on coughing 1 hour after surgery. FKM group had fewer side effects. Conclusions: There was a better analgesic effect and fewer side effects with the addition of epidural midazolam to bupivacaine and fentanyl with ketamine formula. However, more study on the dose and route of administration will be needed.

• Journal of The Korean Dental Society of Anesthesiology
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.111-114
• /
• 2012

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. Given high incidence of ADHD, many children with ADHD is likely to present for anesthesia. This case report suggests intramuscular premedication as an alternative method for anesthetic induction. A 9-year-old male patient with ADHD was transferred for dental treatment under general anesthesia. The patient refused to go into dental clinic office. Oral midazolam was given to the patient, however, he was resistant to take midazolam via oral route. Instead, we administer midazolam and ketamine via intramuscular route. After less than 10 miniutes, the patient became drowsy and was transferred to dental chair. Intravenous access and mask inhalation was possible. The patient received dental treatment under general anesthesia and recovered in a non-complicated way. In this case, intramuscular sedation with midazolam and ketamine was used as a premedication in highly uncoopearive patient refused to take oral sedative medication.

• Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.245-254
• /
• 2018

Background: When performing dental treatment under general anesthesia in adult patients who have difficulty cooperating due to intellectual disabilities, anesthesia induction may be difficult as well. In particular, patients who refuse to come into the dental office or sit in the dental chair may have to be forced to do so. However, for adult patients with a large physique, physical restraint may be difficult, while oral sedatives as premedication may be helpful. Here, a retrospective analysis was performed to investigate the effect of oral sedatives. Methods: A hospital-based medical information database was searched for patients who were prescribed oral midazolam or triazolam between January 2009 and December 2017. Pre-anesthesia evaluation, anesthesia, and anesthesia recovery records of all patients were analyzed, and information on disability type, reason for prescribing oral sedatives, prescribed medication and dose, cooperation level during anesthesia induction, anesthesia duration, length of recovery room stay, and complications was retrieved. Results: A total of 97 patients were identified, of whom 50 and 47 received midazolam and triazolam, respectively. The major types of disability were intellectual disabilities, autism, Down syndrome, blindness, cerebral palsy, and epilepsy. Analyses of changes in cooperation levels after drug administration showed that anesthesia induction without physical restraint was possible in 56.0% of patients in the midazolam group and in 46.8% of patients in the triazolam group (P = 0.312). Conclusions: With administration of oral midazolam or triazolam, general anesthesia induction without any physical restraint was possible in approximately 50% of patients, with no difference between the drugs.

• Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.217-224
• /
• 2019

Purpose: Various publications on the use of sedation and anesthesia for diagnostic procedures in children have demonstrated that no ideal agent is available. Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children, adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension, are concerns in propofol-based sedation. Propofol is used in combination with other sedatives in order to reduce potential complications. We aimed to analyze whether the administration of midazolam would improve the safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies in children. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of children who underwent diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies during a 30-month period. Demographic characteristics, vital signs, medication dosages, induction times, sedation times, recovery times, and any complications observed, were examined. Results: Baseline characteristics did not differ between the midazolam-propofol and propofol alone groups. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of induction times, sedation times, recovery times, or the proportion of satisfactory endoscopist responses. No major procedural complications, such as cardiac arrest, apnea, or laryngospasm, occurred in any case. However, minor complications developed in 22 patients (10.7%), 17 (16.2%) in the midazolam-propofol group and five (5.0%) in the propofol alone group (p=0.010). Conclusion: The sedation protocol with propofol was safe and efficient. The administration of midazolam provided no additional benefit in propofol-based sedation.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.91-98
• /
• 2007

The aim of this study was to examine the difference of the depth of sedation using the Bispectral index assessment with and without the added submucosal Midazolam to oral Chloral hydrate and Hydroxyzine for pediatric patients. Twenty seven sedation cases were performed in this study Selection criteria included good health(ASA I), 2 to 6 years of age, the need for sedation to receive dental treatment including anesthesia, and restorative procedure over at least two teeth. Patients were randomly classified into one group taking oral Chloral hydrate(60 mg/kg) and Hydroxyzine(1 mg/kg) and the other group recieving Chloral hydrate(60 mg/kg), Hydroxyzine(1 mg/kg) and submucosal Midazolam(0.1 mg/kg). Nitrous Oxide(50%) was used for both group during sedation. Patients were monitored using a pulse oximeter and a Bispectral monitor. A behavior scale was rated as quiet(Q), crying(C), movement(M), or struggling(S) every 2 minutes watching a recorded videotape. Analysis showed a significant difference in mean Bispectral index and SD during sedation across two groups(P<0.001). The group of patients injected with submucosal Midazolam in addition to oral Chloral hydrate and Hydroxyzine showed a lower mean Bispectral index and a narrower SD. PR and SpO2 for both groups remained within the normal values. Submucosal Midazolam improved the sedation quality by deepening sedation depth without compromising safety and enabled the sedation pattern to be kept more stable.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.40-48
• /
• 2005

The purpose of present study was to compare the sedative effect of chloral hydrate and oral midazolam treatment. The study was conducted on twenty two child patients who required at least two visits. All the patients showed a good physical status (ASA-I). The patient was randomly assigned to receive drug either chloral hydrate 60mg/kg and hydroxyzine 25mg(Group I) or midazolam 0.5mg/kg and hydroxyzine 25mg(Group II) at each visit. Treatment procedures were divided into six stages. In each stage, sleep, crying, movement and overall behavior score were evaluated. The overall results can be summarized as follows: 1. Success rate was 59.9% in group I and was 77.8% in Group II. 2. Mean sleep score was $1.81{\pm}0.93$ in group I and was $1.44{\pm}0.69$ in group II (P<0.05). 3. Through all treatment procedures, no significant difference was observed between group I and group II in terms of crying, movement and overall behavior score(P>0.05). 4. There was no significant difference between the sex and the age(P>0.05). In regard to above results, oral midazolam considered to be a valuable drug as sedative agent in pediatric dentistry.