Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients

Background: The goal of this investigation was to compare the behavioral and physiological effects of three sedative drug regimens: oral meperidine (OM), submucosal meperidine (SM) and oral midazolam (M) in healthy pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: This study sample consisted of thirty chi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lida Toomarian, Katayoun Salem, Ghassem Ansari
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2013-01-01
Series:Dental Research Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2013;volume=10;issue=2;spage=173;epage=179;aulast=Toomarian
_version_ 1829499237185880064
author Lida Toomarian
Katayoun Salem
Ghassem Ansari
author_facet Lida Toomarian
Katayoun Salem
Ghassem Ansari
author_sort Lida Toomarian
collection DOAJ
description Background: The goal of this investigation was to compare the behavioral and physiological effects of three sedative drug regimens: oral meperidine (OM), submucosal meperidine (SM) and oral midazolam (M) in healthy pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: This study sample consisted of thirty children aged 24-72 months (mean = 41.1) exhibiting definitely negative behavior. Three sedative regimens including: Oral meperidine/hydroxyzine, oral midazolam/hydroxyzine and submucosal meperidine/oral hydroxyzine were administered randomly during three consecutive appointments with a crossover design. Houpt behavioral scale was employed for evaluating the sedation effect of each regimen by a calibrated independent Pediatric dentist. Physiologic parameters were also recorded including blood oxygen saturation and pulse rate. Data was analyzed using Wilcoxon-signed ranked test, Mc-Nemar, GEE Logistic regression, Friedman, Fisher exact and Cochran tests for significance. Results: Overall success rates were 50%, 46.7% and 26.7% for submucosal meperidine, oral meperidine and oral midazolam, respectively ( P = 0.03). The probability of achieving a success in behavior control was more in 48-72 month olds. Child′s age and drug type were the two main predictors of altered behavior. Evaluating the differences between the effects of three tested regimens on recorded physiological parameters showed no significant differences. Conclusion: All three regimens were proved safe within the limits of the current study. Meperidine sedation in both routes was considered to be more effective. Although there was less sleep and more head/oral resistance in midazolam group, the difference between groups was not significant.
first_indexed 2024-12-16T08:29:32Z
format Article
id doaj.art-d25c5e5f55cb45a1b1b0db9a22fc609e
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1735-3327
2008-0255
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-16T08:29:32Z
publishDate 2013-01-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Dental Research Journal
spelling doaj.art-d25c5e5f55cb45a1b1b0db9a22fc609e2022-12-21T22:37:54ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsDental Research Journal1735-33272008-02552013-01-0110217317910.4103/1735-3327.113335Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patientsLida ToomarianKatayoun SalemGhassem AnsariBackground: The goal of this investigation was to compare the behavioral and physiological effects of three sedative drug regimens: oral meperidine (OM), submucosal meperidine (SM) and oral midazolam (M) in healthy pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: This study sample consisted of thirty children aged 24-72 months (mean = 41.1) exhibiting definitely negative behavior. Three sedative regimens including: Oral meperidine/hydroxyzine, oral midazolam/hydroxyzine and submucosal meperidine/oral hydroxyzine were administered randomly during three consecutive appointments with a crossover design. Houpt behavioral scale was employed for evaluating the sedation effect of each regimen by a calibrated independent Pediatric dentist. Physiologic parameters were also recorded including blood oxygen saturation and pulse rate. Data was analyzed using Wilcoxon-signed ranked test, Mc-Nemar, GEE Logistic regression, Friedman, Fisher exact and Cochran tests for significance. Results: Overall success rates were 50%, 46.7% and 26.7% for submucosal meperidine, oral meperidine and oral midazolam, respectively ( P = 0.03). The probability of achieving a success in behavior control was more in 48-72 month olds. Child′s age and drug type were the two main predictors of altered behavior. Evaluating the differences between the effects of three tested regimens on recorded physiological parameters showed no significant differences. Conclusion: All three regimens were proved safe within the limits of the current study. Meperidine sedation in both routes was considered to be more effective. Although there was less sleep and more head/oral resistance in midazolam group, the difference between groups was not significant.http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2013;volume=10;issue=2;spage=173;epage=179;aulast=ToomarianDental anxietymeperidinemidazolamoralpediatric sedationsubmucosal
spellingShingle Lida Toomarian
Katayoun Salem
Ghassem Ansari
Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients
Dental Research Journal
Dental anxiety
meperidine
midazolam
oral
pediatric sedation
submucosal
title Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients
title_full Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients
title_fullStr Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients
title_short Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients
title_sort assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients
topic Dental anxiety
meperidine
midazolam
oral
pediatric sedation
submucosal
url http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2013;volume=10;issue=2;spage=173;epage=179;aulast=Toomarian
work_keys_str_mv AT lidatoomarian assessingthesedativeeffectoforalvssubmucosalmeperidineinpediatricdentalpatients
AT katayounsalem assessingthesedativeeffectoforalvssubmucosalmeperidineinpediatricdentalpatients
AT ghassemansari assessingthesedativeeffectoforalvssubmucosalmeperidineinpediatricdentalpatients