Sedation of children undergoing dental treatment

BACKGROUND: Children's fear about dental treatment may lead to behaviour management problems for the dentist, which can be a barrier to the successful dental treatment of children. Sedation can be used to relieve anxiety and manage behaviour in children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need to determine from published research which agents, dosages and regimens are effective. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and previously updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and relative efficacy of conscious sedation agents and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 22 February 2018); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 22 February 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 February 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 22 February 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials of conscious sedation comparing two or more drugs/techniques/placebo undertaken by the dentist or one of the dental team in children up to 16 years of age. We excluded cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted, in duplicate, information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results. Where information in trial reports was unclear or incomplete authors of trials were contacted. Trials were assessed for risk of bias. Cochrane statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: We included 50 studies with a total of 3704 participants. Forty studies (81%) were at high risk of bias, nine (18%) were at unclear risk of bias, with just one assessed as at low risk of bias. There were 34 different sedatives used with or without inhalational nitrous oxide. Dosages, mode of administration and time of administration varied widely. Studies were grouped into placebo-controlled, dosage and head-to-head comparisons. Meta-analysis of the available data for the primary outcome (behaviour) was possible for studies investigating oral midazolam versus placebo only. There is moderate-certainty evidence from six small clinically heterogeneous studies at high or unclear risk of bias, that the use of oral midazolam in doses between 0.25 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg is associated with more co-operative behaviour compared to placebo; standardized mean difference (SMD) favoured midazolam (SMD 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.33, P < 0.0001, I2 = 90%; 6 studies; 202 participants). It was not possible to draw conclusions regarding the secondary outcomes due to inconsistent or inadequate reporting or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some moderate-certainty evidence that oral midazolam is an effective sedative agent for children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need for further well-designed and well-reported clinical trials to evaluate other potential sedation agents. Further recommendations for future research are described and it is suggested that future trials evaluate experimental regimens in comparison with oral midazolam or inhaled nitrous oxide

Current UK dental sedation practice and the 'National Institute for Health and Care Excellence' (NICE) guideline 112: sedation in children and young people.

Aim: Describe current dental sedation practice for under 19-year-olds in the UK and compare it with the recommendations of NICE guidance 112. Method: Members of the Society for the Advancement of Anaesthesia in Dentistry and members of the Dental Sedation Teachers Group were invited to participate in an online survey. Results: Two hundred and sixty-six dentists and doctors completed the survey. Eighty-two percent were operator and sedationist (operator-sedationist). Ninety-five percent provided written information and 94% obtained written consent. Eighty-four percent kept a written or electronic sedation record. Eighty-six percent complied with life support training expectations. Eighty-six percent had immediate access to resuscitation equipment. Sixty-seven percent of sedationists reported that treatment could not be completed under sedation for <10% of cases during the previous year. When sedation was unsuccessful, 61% said they would schedule general anaesthesia and 54.5% would schedule advanced sedation care. Forty-nine percent believed that a dentist was an appropriate person to provide advanced sedation for 12–18 years. Only 24% thought a dentist should provide advanced sedation for children <12 years, with 75% preferring an anaesthetist. The appropriate setting for advanced sedation was thought to be primary care by 33% and secondary care by 68%. Conclusions: We found good agreement between the current practice of sedation and the recommendations of the NICE guidance 112.No Full Tex

Is pain during pediatric dental sedation associated with children’s pre-operative characteristics? An exploratory study

Abstract Introduction Little is known about the factors associated with the pain of children in dental treatment under conscious sedation. Objective To investigate the association between preoperative characteristics and pain during pediatric dental treatment under sedation. Material and method This exploratory study was conducted with 27 children in restorative treatment under sedation. Information on age, sex and experience of the children with previous dental treatment was obtained through interviews with parents. Oral health status, determined from the presence of dental caries, was verified using the dmf-t index. Pain was assessed by analyzing videos of the dental treatments by two previously calibrated examiners, using the items “legs”, “activity” and “crying” of the observational scale “face, legs, activity, consolability and crying” (FLACC). Data were analyzed using bivariate tests. Result Most of the children (n=14, 51.8%) had no pain during dental treatment under sedation. Among the other children, lower or moderate pain scores (median 1.1; minimum 0 to 3.8) were observed. The FLACC scores did not vary according to sex (P=0.38), previous experience with dental treatment (P=0.32) and history with local anesthesia (P=0.96). The FLACC scores did not correlate significantly with age (Spearman rho= -0.08, P=0.67) and dmf-t (Spearman rho= -0.04, P=0.84). Conclusion In this group of children, pain during dental treatment under sedation was of low frequency and intensity and did not associate with age, sex, oral condition and previous dental experience