International journal of paediatric dentistry · 2024
Effectiveness of buccal administration of dexmedetomidine and ketamine combination in paediatric dental sedation: A randomized controlled clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
El-Rouby Sara H, Crystal Yasmi O, Elshafie Ahmed M, Wahba Nadia A, El-Tekeya Magda M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pain and anxiety can be considerable obstacles while treating paediatric dental patients. Moderate sedation is needed to treat uncooperative patients.
AIM: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of buccal administration of dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus dexmedetomidine.
DESIGN: Fifty-six uncooperative children were randomly assigned into two groups: Group I received buccal dexmedetomidine (2 μg/kg) and ketamine (2 mg/kg) (DEX-KET), whereas Group II received buccal dexmedetomidine (4 μg/kg) (DEX). The effects of drugs were evaluated based on changes in vital signs, onset and duration of sedation, sedation level, analgesia, ease of treatment and procedural adverse effects.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in vital signs or sedation onset between the two groups. DEX-KET group showed shorter recovery time than DEX group (p < .0001). There were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding sedation level at optimum sedation and during operative procedure (p = .064, p = .069 respectively). The ease of treatment was significantly better in DEX-KET group than in DEX group (p = .048). Procedural side effects and analgesic effects of the sedative drugs were comparable between both groups.
CONCLUSION: The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine delivered buccally provided a better method of delivering care to uncooperative children with more rapid recovery than dexmedetomidine.
AIM: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of buccal administration of dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus dexmedetomidine.
DESIGN: Fifty-six uncooperative children were randomly assigned into two groups: Group I received buccal dexmedetomidine (2 μg/kg) and ketamine (2 mg/kg) (DEX-KET), whereas Group II received buccal dexmedetomidine (4 μg/kg) (DEX). The effects of drugs were evaluated based on changes in vital signs, onset and duration of sedation, sedation level, analgesia, ease of treatment and procedural adverse effects.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in vital signs or sedation onset between the two groups. DEX-KET group showed shorter recovery time than DEX group (p < .0001). There were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding sedation level at optimum sedation and during operative procedure (p = .064, p = .069 respectively). The ease of treatment was significantly better in DEX-KET group than in DEX group (p = .048). Procedural side effects and analgesic effects of the sedative drugs were comparable between both groups.
CONCLUSION: The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine delivered buccally provided a better method of delivering care to uncooperative children with more rapid recovery than dexmedetomidine.