Comparison the Effects of Two Low-Dose Intravenous Sedation Methods on Anxiety Control during Dental Implant Surgery

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry AND Torabinejad Dental Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Isfahan, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: Control of patient anxiety during dental procedure, makes better operating conditions and reduces medical complications in patients. Intravenous conscious sedation is a good method for patient control during dental surgery. This study aimed to compare the effects of two methods of low-dose intravenous sedation regimes for patient control in dental implant surgery.Methods:, 30 patients candidate for dental implant surgery were randomly divided into two groups. Before the surgery, low intravenous doses of combinations of midazolam/fentanylin and midazolam/ketamine were administered for the two group. Sedation score and operation condition in both groups were evaluated and recorded. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney statistical test.Findings: In midazolam/ketamine group, 86.7% and in midazolam/fentanyl group, 80.0% of patients had appropriate sedation. Good operation condition was observed in 73.3% and 80.0% of the patients in midazolam/ketamine and midazolam/fentanyl groups, respectively. There were not any significant differences between the two groups in sedation score and operation conditions.Conclusion: Both evaluated drug regimens can provide good sedation score in over than 80% of patients and good operation condition in over than 70% of patients. So, both drug combinations are useful for patients in implant surgery.

Keywords

References

  1. Kaviani N, Birang R, Behnia M, Mirghaderi M. Evaluation of medical emergency prevalence in Isfahanian dental offices. J Med Counc I.R. Iran 2007; 25(2): 198-205. [In Persian].
  2. Coulson NS, Buchanan H. Self-reported efficacy of an online dental anxiety support group: a pilot study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2008; 36(1): 43-6.
  3. Schwartz-Arad D, Bar-Tal Y, Eli I. Effect of stress on information processing in the dental implant surgery setting. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18(1): 9-12.
  4. Craig DC, Wildsmith JA. Conscious sedation for dentistry: an update. Br Dent J 2007; 203(11): 629-31.
  5. Wiener-Kronish J, Gropper MA. Consious sedation.1st ed. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley and Belfus INC; 2001. p. 8-10, 100-2.
  6. Hermes D, Matthes M, Saka B. Treatment anxiety in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Results of a German multi-centre trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2007; 35(6-7): 316-21.
  7. Singh N, Pandey RK, Saksena AK, Jaiswal JN. A comparative evaluation of oral midazolam with other sedatives as premedication in pediatric dentistry. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002; 26(2): 161-4.
  8. Barash PG, Gullen BF, Stoelting RK. Clinical anesthesia. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 33-5.
  9. Gerecke M. Chemical structure and properties of midazolam compared with other benzodiazepines. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1983; 16(Suppl 1): 11S-6S.
  10. Craig DC, Boyle CA, Fleming GJ, Palmer P. A sedation technique for implant and periodontal surgery. J Clin Periodontol 2000; 27(12): 955-9.
  11. Morse Z, Sano K, Kanri T. Effects of a midazolam-ketamine admixture in human volunteers. Anesth Prog 2004; 51(3): 76-9.
  12. Koirala B, Pandey RK, Saksen AK, Kumar R, Sharma S. A comparative evaluation of newer sedatives in conscious sedation. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2006; 30(4): 273-6.
  13. Leitch J, Macpherson A. Current state of sedation/analgesia care in dentistry. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2007; 20(4): 384-7.
  14. Rodgers SF. Safety of intravenous sedation administered by the operating oral surgeon: the first 7 years of office practice. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63(10): 1478-83.
  15. Juodzbalys G, Giedraitis R, Machiulskiene V, Huys LW, Kubilius R. New method of sedation in oral surgery. J Oral Implantol 2005; 31(6): 304-8.
  16. Lind LJ, Mushlin PS, Schnitman PA. Monitored anesthesia care for dental implant surgery: analysis of effectiveness and complications. J Oral Implantol 1990; 16(2): 106-13.
  17. Runes J, Strom C. Midazolam intravenous conscious sedation in oral surgery. A retrospective study of 372 cases. Swed Dent J 1996; 20(1-2): 29-33.
  18. Blankstein KC, Anderson JA. A double-blind comparison of low-dose intravenous ketamine and methohexital in adults. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991; 49(5): 468-75.
  19. Dental Sedation Teachers Group (DSTG). Logbook of clinical experience in conscious sedation [Online]. [cited 2010 Jun]; Available from: URL:www.dstg.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sedationlogbook.doc.
  20. Chung F, Chan VW, Ong D. A post-anesthetic discharge scoring system for home readiness after ambulatory surgery. J Clin Anesth 1995; 7(6): 500-6.
  21. Umino M, Nagao M. Systemic diseases in elderly dental patients. Int Dent J 1993; 43(3): 213-8.
  22. Ghezzi EM, Ship JA. Systemic diseases and their treatments in the elderly: impact on oral health. J Public Health Dent 2000; 60(4): 289-96.
  23. Dionne RA, Yagiela JA, Moore PA, Gonty A, Zuniga J, Beirne OR. Comparing efficacy and safety of four intravenous sedation regimens in dental outpatients. J Am Dent Assoc 2001; 132(6): 740-51.
  24. Lepere AJ, Slack-Smith LM. Average recovery time from a standardized intravenous sedation protocol and standardized discharge criteria in the general dental practice setting. Anesth Prog 2002; 49(3): 77-81.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 32, Issue 287 - Serial Number 287
March and April 2014
Pages 768-775

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 November 2013
  • Revise Date: 01 June 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics