Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Sep 1;21 (5):e579-86.

Conscious sedation in dentistry

Journal section: Medically compromised patients in Dentistry doi:10.4317/medoral.20981

Publication Types: Review http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.4317/medoral.20981

Current methods of sedation in dental patients - a systematic

review of the literature

Jose-Ramón Corcuera-Flores 1, Javier Silvestre-Rangil 2, Antonio Cutando-Soriano 3, Julián López-Jiménez 4

1
PhD, DDS, Associate Professor. Special Care in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Spain
2
PhD, DDS, Associate Professor. Special Care in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Valencia, Spain
3
PhD, MD, DDS, Professor. Special Care in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Spain
4
PhD, MD, DDS. “Nen Deu” Private Practice Hospital, Barcelona, Spain

Correspondence:
School of Dentistry
C/Avicena s/n Corcuera-Flores JR, Silvestre-Rangil J, Cutando-Soriano A, López-Ji-
41009 Seville, Spain ménez J. Current methods of sedation in dental patients - a systematic
[email protected] review of the literature. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Sep 1;21
(5):e579-86.
http://www.medicinaoral.com/medoralfree01/v21i5/medoralv21i5p579.pdf

Received: 31/07/2015 Article Number: 20981 http://www.medicinaoral.com/

Accepted: 16/03/2016 © Medicina Oral S. L. C.I.F. B 96689336 - pISSN 1698-4447 - eISSN: 1698-6946
eMail: [email protected]
Indexed in:
Science Citation Index Expanded
Journal Citation Reports
Index Medicus, MEDLINE, PubMed
Scopus, Embase and Emcare
Indice Médico Español

Abstract
Objective: The main objective of this systematic literature review is to identify the safest and most effective seda-
tive drugs so as to ensure successful sedation with as few complications as possible.
Study Design: A systematic literature review of the PubMed MEDLINE database was carried out using the key
words “conscious sedation,” “drugs,” and “dentistry.” A total of 1,827 scientific articles were found, and these
were narrowed down to 473 articles after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. These 473 studies were then
individually assessed for their suitability for inclusion in this literature review.
Results: A total of 21 studies were selected due to their rigorous study design and conduciveness to further, more
exhaustive analysis. The selected studies included a total of 1,0003 patients classified as ASA I or II. Midazolam
was the drug most frequently used for successful sedation in dental surgical procedures. Ketamine also proved
very useful when administered intranasally, although some side effects were observed when delivered via other
routes of administration. Both propofol and nitrous oxide (N2O) are also effective sedative drugs.
Conclusions: Midazolam is the drug most commonly used to induce moderate sedation in dental surgical proce-
dures, and it is also very safe. Other sedative drugs like ketamine, dexmedetomidine and propofol have also been
proven safe and effective; however, further comparative clinical studies are needed to better demonstrate which of
these are the safest and most effective.

Key words: Conscious sedation, drugs, dentistry.

e579
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Sep 1;21 (5):e579-86. Conscious sedation in dentistry

Introduction effective sedative drug in order to provide dental prac-

Conscious sedation is an effective method of reducing titioners with updated information on whichever drugs
preoperative anxiety in children and in adult patients were found to be the most suitable. A total of 4,740 sci-
who suffer from anxiety, especially prior to surgical entific articles were found by entering the key words
procedures requiring general anesthesia. When admin- “drugs” and “sedation” into the PubMed MEDLINE da-
istered before dental treatments, conscious sedation tabase. The search was then further limited to clinical
methods have been shown to aid in the reduction of pa- trials, which narrowed the results down to 473 studies.
tient pain and anxiety. Conscious sedation is very use- These 473 results were then individually assessed for
ful in encouraging patient cooperation and improving their suitability for inclusion in this literature review,
overall patient satisfaction with dental treatment. How- with a total of 21 studies being selected due to their rig-
ever, conscious sedation methods do involve some level orous study design and conduciveness to further, more
of risk for patients and dental practitioners (1). It is well exhaustive analysis; in this case, only prospective ran-
known that conscious sedation allows dental practitio- domized studies were classified as rigorous.
ners to treat uncooperative patients (2). The only studies selected were prospective randomized
Some patients simply cannot be treated with locoregion- studies; any studies that were not prospective were dis-
al anesthesia alone for various reasons, generally due to carded. Other inclusion criteria stipulated that studies
behavioral problems resulting from some form of dis- focus on sedative drugs administered to either healthy
ability or because the patient is a child. In these cases, patients or patients with specialized treatment needs,
procedures must be performed with the patient under including need for buccal or cervicofacial surgical in-
conscious sedation (3). However, in some cases requir- tervention, or studies that compared and assessed dif-
ing very complex dental procedures, or if the patient is ferent drugs used to induce light or moderate sedation.
in poor condition, conscious sedation may be inadvis- See figure 1 for a diagram detailing how this literature
able or the class of drugs used may be contraindicated. review was carried out.
The adverse effects associated with conscious sedation
are a result of the class of drugs used, with hallucina- Results
tions being the most frequently observed adverse reac- The selected articles studied a total of 1,003 patients
tion (4,5) linked to the use of benzodiazepines, propofol classified as ASA I or II.
and nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide may also cause damage Table 1 and 1 continue provides an overview of each of the
to immune and hematologic systems, and it can cause selected articles: Authors, year of publication, number of
fertility problems in women (6-9). However, the biggest patients treated, drugs administered, route(s) of adminis-
disadvantage of conscious sedation is that it can mask tration, medical specialty, and conclusions reached.
symptoms of a medical emergency, so clinicians should Upon analyzing the different kinds of sedative drugs
remain very conscious of proper methods of sedation used, it appears midazolam was used 24 times in 15 stud-
for dental procedures and their importance (10). ies, in varying concentrations (0.005 mg/kg, 0.06 mg/kg,
Clinics that employ methods of conscious sedation are 0.2 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, and 0.5 mg/kg). It was adminis-
required to have the equipment necessary to handle tered orally in 10 studies, intranasally in 5, intravenously
medical emergencies such as hypoventilation or central in another 5 studies, and in one study it was administered
nervous system depression (11-13). The most important via an aerosolized buccal spray. On one occasion, it was
consideration when dealing with a potential emergency administered using a transmucosal syrup, through intra-
is to have a highly qualified team capable of handling muscular injection, and submucosally. All of the studies
any issues that may arise, especially any respiratory showed that midazolam can be used safely and effective-
complications. ly to induce light or moderate sedation.
Today, there are a wide variety of drugs that can be used Ketamine was administered 12 times in varying con-
to sedate patients (14); however, there are relatively few centrations (0.25 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg, 6 mg/kg, 10 mg/
studies that compare the safety and effectiveness of dif- kg, and 50 mg/kg) over 9 different studies. It was ad-
ferent kinds of sedatives. Therefore, the main objective ministered intranasally in 4 studies, intravenously in 2
of this systematic literature review is to identify the saf- studies, orally in 5 studies (in one case, the patient was
est and most effective sedative drugs so as to ensure given a ketamine-laced lollipop), and via intramuscular
successful sedation with as few complications as pos- injection in one study. The drug proved to be a highly
sible. effective sedative in all of these studies.
Two different studies administered dexmedetomidine
Material and Methods intravenously and intranasally in two different con-
To fulfill the given objectives, a systematic literature centrations (1 µg/kg and 1.5 µg/kg), and the drug was
review was undertaken using the PubMed MEDLINE shown to be a viable alternative to midazolam.
database, with a view to identifying the safest and most Clonidine was tested in two studies using varying con-

e580
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Sep 1;21 (5):e579-86. Conscious sedation in dentistry

Fig. 1. Literature Review Diagram.

centrations (2 µg/kg, 4 µg/kg, 3-4 µg/kg, and 7-8 µg/ Chloral hydrate was administered orally in 2 articles, in
kg). It was administered intranasally twice and orally concentrations of 40 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg, and 75 mg/kg.
on one occasion. The drug provided good results.
Two studies administered atropine intranasally, orally, or The following drugs were used in only one study: 0.5
intramuscularly in varying concentrations (0.02 mg/kg, mg/kg of alprazolam, administered orally; 3 mg of me-
0.05 mg/kg, and 20 mg/kg). Atropine helps to reduce the latonin, also administered orally; 1-1.5 mg/kg of keto-
increased salivation often caused by ketamine, and it also fol, administered intravenously; 70 mg/kg of triclofos,
helps facilitate the absorption of clonidine. administered orally; 0.3 µg/k of fentanyl via submu-
Between 1-1.5 mg/kg of propofol were administered cosal administration; and 2 mg/kg of hydroxyzine. A
intravenously in 2 different articles. Propofol is a safe placebo was administered on six occasions.
method of sedation, but it is less potent than intravenous
ketamine. Discussion
Three articles assessed the use of diazepam in concentra- There are a wide range of drugs, routes of administra-
tions of 0.5 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg. It was always adminis- tion, and varying clinical protocols that can be used to
tered orally, and it proved less effective than midazolam. induce conscious or deep sedation.

e581
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Sep 1;21 (5):e579-86. Conscious sedation in dentistry

Table 1. Authors, year of publication, number of patients, drugs administered, route of administration, medical specialty, and conclusions
of each of the analyzed articles.
AUTHORS DATE TYPE OF Nº of DRUGS USED AND ROUTE OF SPECIALTY CONCLUSIONS
STUDY PATIENTS DOSAGE ADMINISTRATION

Surendar, 2014 Randomized 84 Dexmedetomidine 1 Intranasal Dentistry All the drugs are
et al. (15) Triple-blind !g/kg safe and effective
Dexmedetomidine 1.5 in the light
!g /kg sedation of
Midazolam uncooperative
0.2 mg/kg patients
Ketamine 5 mg/kg
Pokharel, 2014 Prospective 80 Alprazolam 0.5 mg + Oral Anesthesiology The combination
et al. (16) Double- melatonin 3 mg of alprazolam
blind Alprazolam 0.5 mg with melatonin
Randomized Melatonin 3 mg reduces anxiety
Placebo Level of sedation
is similar to the
alprazolam groups
Mitra, 2014 Prospective 60 Clonidine 4 !g/kg + Intranasal Anesthesiology Midazolam
et al. (17) Double- Atropine 20 !g/kg provides a faster-
blind Midazolam 0.3 mg/kg onset sedation;
Randomized Intravenous both drugs
provide adequate
anxiolysis after 30
minutes
Mittal, 2013 Prospective 40 Propofol 1-1.5 mg/kg Intravenous Dentistry Propofol is safer
et al. (34) Double- Ketofol 1-1.5 mg/kg + but both drugs
blind Ketamine 0.25 mg/kg have similar
Randomized sedative effects
Tyagi, 2013 Prospective 40 Midazolam 0.5mg/kg Oral Dentistry Midazolam allows
et al. (18) Randomized Diazepam 0.5 mg/kg Oral for a higher level
Triple-blind Midazolam 0.06 Intravenous of sedation, better
mg/kg Oral anxiolysis, and it
Placebo is safer than
diazepam
Chopra, 2013 Prospective 30 Midazolam Aerosol mouth spray Dentistry Oral midazolam is
et al. (19) Randomized Intranasal more effective but
Midazolam not significantly
so
Fan, 2013 Prospective 60 Midazolam 0.005 Intravenous Dentistry Dexmedetomidine
et al. (20) Double- mg/kg/min Intravenous is a good
blind Dexmedetomidine 0.1 alternative to
Randomized !g/kg/min midazolam for
achieving
adequate levels of
sedation
Tyagi, 2012 Prospective 40 Midazolam 0.5 mg/kg Oral Dentistry Midazolam has
et al. (21) Randomized Diazepam 0.5 mg/kg Oral stronger sedative
Triple-blind Midazolam 0.06 Intravenous effects than
mg/kg Oral diazepam
Placebo
Horacek, 2012 Prospective 29 Ketamine 5 mg/kg + Oral Dentistry Oral ketamine and
et al. (22) Double- Clonidine 2 !g/kg + Oral midazolam are
blind Midazolam 0.3 mg/kg safe and effective
Randomized Ketamine 5 mg/kg + sedatives
Midazolam 0.3 mg/kg

Pandey, 2011 Prospective 34 Ketamine Intranasal spray Dentistry The spray is better
et al. (33) Randomized Ketamine Intranasal drops tolerated than the
intranasal drops,
but both are
equally effective
Larsson, 2012 Prospective 60 Saline placebo Intranasal Anesthesiology Clonidine
et al. (35) Double- Clonidine 3-4 !g/kg Intranasal provides adequate
blind Clonidine 7-8 !g/kg sedation in both
Randomized groups

e582
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Sep 1;21 (5):e579-86. Conscious sedation in dentistry

Table 1 continue. Authors, year of publication, number of patients, drugs administered, route of administration, medical specialty, and
conclusions of each of the analyzed articles.

Bahetwar, 2011 Prospective 45 Midazolam Intranasal Dentistry Both drugs induce

et al. (23) Randomized Ketamine Intranasal moderate
Midazolam + Intranasal sedation, but
Ketamine ketamine is more
effective
Klein, 2011 Prospective 169 Midazolam Intranasal Facial and Midazolam mouth
et al. (24) Randomized Midazolam Aerosol mouth spray orofacial spray is the most
Midazolam Oral surgery effective route of
administration
Shabbir, 2011 Prospective 12 Triclofos 70 mg/kg Oral Dentistry Oral midazolam is
et al. (25) Randomized Midazolam 0.5mg/kg Oral more effective
than triclofos

Pandey, (26) 2010 Prospective 23 Fentanyl 0.3 !g/kg Submucosal Dentistry A combination of
Randomized + Midazolam 0.5 Oral fentanyl and
Triple-blind mg/kg midalozam
Placebo + Midazolam improves sedative
0.5 mg/kg effects

Dangerous
(oxygen
desaturation), a
combination of
fentanyl and
midazolam
improves sedative
effects but may
cause oxygen
desaturation
Damle, 2008 Prospective 20 Midazolam 0.5 mg/kg Oral Dentistry After 30 minutes,
et al. (27) Randomized Ketamine 5 mg/kg Oral midazolam shows
Double- greater sedative
blind effects with less
side effects
Da Costa, (28) 2007 Prospective 12 Placebo Oral Dentistry Chloral hydrate is
Randomized Chloral hydrate 75 Oral a viable method
Double- mg/kg Oral of sedation,
blind Chloral hydrate 50 however
mg/kg + Hydroxyzine hydroxyzine does
2 mg/kg not lend any
additional benefits
Rai, 2007 Prospective 30 Propofol Intravenous Dentistry Ketamine proved
et al. (32) Randomized Midazolam Intravenous to be the most
Ketamine Intravenous effective drug
Bhatnagar, 2008 Prospective 60 Ketamine 6 mg/kg Intramuscular Oncology Both routes of
et al. (29) Randomized + Midazolam 0.05 Oral administration are
mg/kg + Atropine effective
0.02 mg/kg Oral
Ketamine 10 mg/kg + administration is
Midazolam 0.2 mg/kg less painful
+ Atropine 0.05
mg/kg
Kantovitz, 2007 Prospective 20 Chloral hydrate 40 Oral Dentistry Diazepam and
et al. (30) Randomized mg/kg Oral chloral hydrate do
Double- Diazepam 5mg not affect
blind children’s
behavior
Horiuchi, 2005 Prospective 55 Lollipop with Oral submucosal Anesthesiology Ketamine
et al. (31) Randomized ketamine 50 mg Oral administered
Midazolam oral syrup transmucosally in
0.5 mg/kg the oral cavity
does not appear to
have any
advantages over
oral midazolam
!

e583
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Sep 1;21 (5):e579-86. Conscious sedation in dentistry

Benzodiazepines are the class of drugs most often used fore, diazepam does not offer any sedative advantage
to induce a state of anxiolysis, sedation, or amnesia (15). over midazolam (18,21). Alprazolam is a highly effec-
Of the articles selected for this review, midazolam is the tive anxiolytic premedication, and when combined with
most frequently used benzodiazepine (16-18-22,23-29). melatonin it increases the latter’s sedative effects, thus
Midazolam can be used to induce a safe and effective inducing a deep level of sedation.
state of sedation without risk of cardiopulmonary com- Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic and analgesic that
plications. This conclusion has been reached after com- is also used as a sedative drug, maintaining the patient’s
paring midazolam with other sedative drugs such as muscle tone and the respiratory system’s protective re-
diazepam, ketamine, clonidine, and dexmedetomidine flexes (29,31). However, in adults, ketamine may also
in double- and triple-blind randomized studies. In these cause hallucinations and nightmares during the recov-
studies, midazolam provided the best results in terms of ery period, and as such it sees limited use in adults;
onset time of action, depth of sedation, and anxiolysis these side effects are rarely seen in children (31).
(16-20,27). Intravenous ketamine has been shown to have a power-
Midazolam can be delivered in various ways, including ful sedative effect; some researchers actually preferred
via intravenous, intramuscular, submucosal, oral, or in- ketamine to midazolam due to increased patient coop-
tranasal routes of administration. The most commonly erativeness and because it carried less side effects; more
used routes of administration of midazolam are intrana- double- and triple-blind studies are necessary to compare
sal, oral, or intravenous. Any of these can induce a state its effectiveness with that of other drugs in order to ob-
of anxiolysis, but only intravenous administration of tain sufficient scientific evidence for this claim (32).
midazolam can induce a state of deep sedation, as dem- On the other hand, when comparing oral midazolam and
onstrated by Tyagi et al. in a well-designed prospective oral ketamine, while they exhibit similar sedative effects,
randomized triple-blind study (18). midazolam is more conducive to anxiolysis, and orally
Oral and intramuscular routes of administration result administered ketamine results in a slower recovery pe-
in similar sedative effects, but the former is less invasive riod post-sedation. These drugs were compared in a well-
and better tolerated by patients, which lends it a signifi- designed, double-blind randomized clinical trial (27).
cant advantage (24,29). Intranasal administration of a Ketamine can be delivered safely and effectively via an
midazolam spray is also an effective method of induc- intranasal route of administration (16,26,29).
ing sedation and fast-onset anxiolysis. A level of moder- Transmucosal oral administration of ketamine has also
ate sedation can be achieved with this drug and route of been studied using a lollipop to deliver the drug, and
administration after about 30 minutes (16,17). However, its effectiveness was then compared with oral midazo-
the spray may cause symptoms such as bitter taste or lam without evidence of any greater sedative effects.
burning sensations or pain within the nose. These side However, only one of the studies reviewed examined
effects can be avoided by opting for a buccal midazolam this route of administration of ketamine, and while it
spray applied to the oral mucosa, which is well tolerated was a randomized study, there is a need for additional,
by uncooperative patients (19,24). Although this method double-blind studies in order to obtain better evidence
has been studied in various clinical trials, only Klein et to this effect (31).
al. (24) carried out a randomized study. A combination of oral ketamine and oral midazolam
Midazolam has only been used to sedate children, but results in safe and effective sedation (22,23,29), and a
it should not be the first option as hypoventilation may combination of oral ketamine, oral midazolam and atro-
occur, depending on dose and any paradoxical reactions pine significantly reduces the increased salivation often
(17,29). However, midazolam can be used in conjunc- caused by ketamine (29). However, unfortunately these
tion with other sedatives like ketamine or propofol to were not double-blind studies, which would have pro-
help decrease the overall dosage needed, which also aids vided more concrete evidence.
in minimizing any adverse effects and may promote Propofol is a short-acting intravenous sedative. This
quicker recovery times and a faster onset of sedative drug is very useful for surgical interventions in the oro-
action (29). While this was demonstrated by one of the facial area, which necessitate a higher quantity of local
clinical trials evaluated as part of this systematic litera- anesthesia with adrenaline; propofol can help balance
ture review, there is a need for additional double-blind cardiovascular alterations resulting from the adrenaline
studies in order to obtain more concrete evidence. injection (32).
Other diazepines such as diazepam or alprazolam The sedative effects of propofol are stronger than those
have also been successfully used to sedate patients of midazolam, but it can also cause additional side effects
(15,18,21,30). such as sudden movements, crying fits, intermittent cough-
Diazepam and midazolam exhibit similar sedative ef- ing, and pain at the site of injection. Additionally, there is
fects, but the latter provides a better anxiolytic effect a risk of severe hypotension when administering propofol
as well as a minimally higher level of sedation; there- (33). However, while these studies were randomized, they

e584
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Sep 1;21 (5):e579-86. Conscious sedation in dentistry

would benefit from larger sample sizes and a double-blind References

design in order to provide better evidence of this. 1. Almenrader N, Passariello M, Coccetti B, Haiberger R, Pietropao-
li P. Premedication in children: a comparison of oral midazolam and
Propofol can also be combined with ketamine, although
oral clonidine. Paediatr Anaesth. 2007;17:1143-9.
the combination of both these drugs may lead to hy- 2. Wilson TD, McNeil DW, Kyle BN, Weaver BD, Graves RW. Ef-
poventilation. Therefore, as both drugs have similar fects of conscious sedation on patient recall of anxiety and pain
sedative effects, it is safer to use propofol alone rather after oral surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol.
2014;117:277-82.
than combining the two sedatives. This is seen in Mittal
3. O’Halloran M. The use of anaesthetic agents to provide anxi-
et al.’s study; although a randomized double-blind clini- olysis and sedation in dentistry and oral surgery. Australas Med J.
cal trial, the study would have benefitted from a larger 2013;6:713-8.
sample size (34). 4. Saraghi M, Badner VM, Golden LR, Hersh EV. Propofol: an
overview of its risks and benefits. Compend Contin Educ Dent.
Clonidine and dexmedetomidine target the α-2 adrenergic
2013;34:252-8.
receptor agonists, and their potential use as preoperative 5. Lambert C. Sexual phenomena hypnosis and nitrous oxide seda-
premedications has been studied extensively. tion. J Am Dent Assoc. 1982;105:990-1.
Intranasal clonidine appears to induce an adequate level 6. Sweeney B, Bingham RM, Amos RJ, Petty AC, Cole PV. Toxicity
of bone marrow in dentists exposed to nitrous oxide. Br Med J (Clin
of sedation, working more slowly than midazolam but
Res Ed). 1985;291:567-9.
with fewer side effects, as demonstrated in a rigorous, ran- 7. Nunn JF, Sharer NM, Gorchein A, Jones JA, Wickramasinghe SN.
domized double-blind study with a good sample size (17). Megaloblastic haemopoiesis after multiple short-term exposure to
Additionally, when combined with atropine, clonidine ap- nitrous oxide. Lancet. 1982;1:1379-81.
8. Pasha H, Basirat Z, Hajahmadi M, Bakhtiari A, Faramarzi M, Sal-
pears to be better absorbed and to have a more predictable
malian H. Maternal expectations and experiences of labor analgesia
effect on the reduction of nasal secretions (17). with nitrous oxide. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2012;14:792-7.
Other studies found that clonidine did not have very 9. Lahoud GY, Averley PA. Comparison of sevoflurane and nitrous
strong sedative effects (35). Clonidine has also been oxide mixture with nitrous oxide alone for inhalation conscious se-
dation in children having dental treatment: a randomised controlled
studied in conjunction with ketamine and midazolam,
trial. Anaesthesia. 2002;57:446-50.
without any additional benefits being found from using 10. Todd DW. Pediatric sedation and anesthesia for the oral surgeon.
this combination (22). Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2013;25:467-78.
Despite this, dexmedetomidine appears to function just 11. Corcuera-Flores JR, Delgado-Muñoz JM, Ruiz-Villandiego JC,
Maura-Solivellas I, Machuca-Portillo G. Dental treatment for handi-
as well as midazolam, providing a safe, moderate, and
capped patients; sedation vs general anesthesia and update of dental
effective sedation. Additionally, some studies suggest it treatment in patients with different diseases. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir
may even increase patient cooperation (16,20). Bucal. 2014;19:e170-6.
Chloral hydrate is another safe and effective sedative 12. Lieberman MI, Velez I, Mejia L, Solomon L, Siegel MA. Man-
agement of the anxious dental patient. Todays FDA. 2013;25:54-9.
drug, but it does not appear to have any advantages over
13. Becker DE, Rosenberg MB, Phero JC. Essentials of airway man-
midazolam (28,30). A combination of chloral hydrate agement, oxygenation, and ventilation: part 1: basic equipment and
and hydroxyzine only results in more side effects, and devices. Anesth Prog. 2014;61:78-83.
therefore this combination should not be administered to 14. Monteserín-Matesanz M, Esparza-Gómez GC, García-Chías B,
Gasco-García C, Cerero-Lapiedra R. Descriptive study of the pa-
patients (28). Triclofos was shown to have a less power-
tients treated at the clinic “integrated dentistry for patients with spe-
ful sedative effect than midazolam (25). A combination cial needs” at Complutense University of Madrid (2003-2012). Med
of midazolam with submucosally administered opioids Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015;20:e211-7.
such as fentanyl results in a greater sedative effect, but 15. Surendar MN, Pandey RK, Saksena AK, Kumar R, Chandra GA.
Comparative evaluation of intranasal dexmedetomidine, midazolam
this may also cause oxygen desaturation (26).
and ketamine for their sedative and analgesic properties: a triple
In conclusion, Midazolam is the most commonly used blind randomized study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014;38:255-61.
sedative drug in dental procedures (light sedation). It is 16. Pokharel K, Tripathi M, Gupta PK, Bhattarai B, Khatiwada S,
a very safe sedative, and it is most often administered Subedi A. Premedication with oral alprazolam and melatonin com-
bination: a comparison with either alone--a randomized controlled
either intranasally or orally.
factorial trial. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:356964.
Ketamine also proves very useful when administered 17. Mitra S, Kazal S, Anand LK. Intranasal clonidine vs. midazolam
intranasally, inducing a high level of sedation (deeper as premedication in children: a randomized controlled trial. Indian
than that of midazolam); however, when delivered via Pediatr. 2014;51:113-8.
18. Tyagi P, Tyagi S, Jain A. Sedative effects of oral midazolam, in-
other routes of administration, various side effects have
travenous midazolam and oral diazepam in the dental treatment of
been observed. Intravenous propofol is also a very safe children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013;37:301-5.
and effective sedative. 19. Chopra R, Mittal M, Bansal K, Chaudhuri P. Buccal midazolam
Other drugs like clonidine and dexmedetomidine have spray as an alternative to intranasal route for conscious sedation in
pediatric dentistry. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013;38:171-3.
also been proven effective in inducing a state of con-
20. Fan TW, Ti LK, Islam I. Comparison of dexmedetomidine and
scious sedation. midazolam for conscious sedation in dental surgery monitored by
However, further clinical trials are needed to compare bispectral index. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;51:428-33.
these drugs and obtain more evidence in order to deter- 21. Tyagi P, Dixit U, Tyagi S, Jain A. Sedative effects of oral midazo-
lam, intravenous midazolam and oral diazepam. J Clin Pediatr Dent.
mine which of these are the safest and most effective.
2012;36:383-8.

e585
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Sep 1;21 (5):e579-86. Conscious sedation in dentistry

22. Horacek J, Palenicek T, Malek J, Scigel V, Kurzova A, Hess L.

The influence of clonidine on oral ketamine-midazolam premedi-
cation in intellectually disabled patients indicated for dental pro-
cedures: double-blind comparison of two sedation regimes. Neuro
Endocrinol Lett. 2012;33:380-4.
23. Bahetwar SK, Pandey RK, Saksena AK, Chandra GA. Compara-
tive evaluation of intranasal midazolam, ketamine and their com-
bination for sedation of young uncooperative pediatric dental pa-
tients: a triple blind randomized crossover trial. J Clin Pediatr Dent.
2011;35:415-20.
24. Klein EJ, Brown JC, Kobayashi A, Osincup D, Seidel K. A ran-
domized clinical trial comparing oral, aerosolized intranasal, and
aerosolized buccal midazolam. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;58:323-9.
25. Shabbir A, Bhat SS, Sundeep Hegde K, Salman M. Comparison
of oral midazolam and triclofos in conscious sedation of uncoopera-
tive children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;36:189-96.
26. Pandey RK, Padmanabhan MY, Saksena AK, Chandra G. Mida-
zolam-fentanyl analgo-sedation in pediatric dental patients--a pilot
study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010;35:105-10.
27. Damle SG, Gandhi M, Laheri V. Comparison of oral ketamine
and oral midazolam as sedative agents in pediatric dentistry. J Indian
Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2008;26:97-101.
28. da Costa LR, da Costa PS, Lima AR. A randomized double-
blinded trial of chloral hydrate with or without hydroxyzine versus
placebo for pediatric dental sedation. Braz Dent J. 2007;18:334-40.
29. Bhatnagar S, Mishra S, Gupta M, Srikanti M, Mondol A, Diwedi
A. Efficacy and safety of a mixture of ketamine, midazolam and at-
ropine for procedural sedation in paediatric oncology: a randomised
study of oral versus intramuscular route. J Paediatr Child Health.
2008;44:201-4.
30. Kantovitz KR, Puppin-Rontani RM, Gaviao MB. Sedative effect
of oral diazepam and chloral hydrate in the dental treatment of chil-
dren. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2007;25:69-75.
31. Horiuchi T, Kawaguchi M, Kurehara K, Kawaraguchi Y, Sasaoka
N, Furuya H. Evaluation of relatively low dose of oral transmucosal
ketamine premedication in children: a comparison with oral midazo-
lam. Paediatr Anaesth. 2005;15:643-7.
32. Rai K, Hegde AM, Goel K. Sedation in uncooperative children
undergoing dental procedures: a comparative evaluation of midazo-
lam, propofol and ketamine. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2007;32:1-4.
33. Pandey RK, Bahetwar SK, Saksena AK, Chandra GA. Compara-
tive evaluation of drops versus atomized administration of intranasal
ketamine for the procedural sedation of young uncooperative pediat-
ric dental patients: a prospective crossover trial. J Clin Pediatr Dent.
2011;36:79-84.
34. Mittal N, Goyal A, Gauba K, Kapur A, Jain KA. Double blind
randomized trial of ketofol versus propofol for endodontic treatment
of anxious pediatric patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013;37:415-20.
35. Larsson P, Eksborg S, Lönnqvist PA. Onset time for pharma-
cologic premedication with clonidine as a nasal aerosol: a double-
blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Paediatr Anaesth.
2012;22:877-83.

Conflict of Interest
The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exist.

e586