Effect of midazolam in autism spectrum disorder: A retrospective observational analysis.

BACKGROUND: While midazolam is commonly used as premedication for uncooperative patients, its effects are difficult to predict in patients with autism spectrum disorder for whom abnormalities in gamma-aminobutyric acid have been reported. This study aimed to investigate the influence of autism spectrum disorder on the effect of midazolam when used as premedication. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was performed between April 2017 and August 2018. Before inducing general anesthesia with sevoflurane for dental treatment, 390 uncooperative patients received premedication with midazolam. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed with the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score 30 min after premedication as the objective variable. Age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class, premedication route, dose per body weight, presence of specific disorders (autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and other psychiatric disorders), and regular benzodiazepine or non-benzodiazepine psychotropic administration were included as explanatory variables. Kendall's rank correlation coefficient was used to assess the correlation between the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score and cooperation level (1, obvious negative response; 2, negative response; 3, positive reaction; 4, obvious positive reaction) during admission and inhalation induction. All data were extracted from anesthesia and medical records. RESULTS: Age (odds ratio 1.437 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.213-1.708], P < .001), autism spectrum disorder (1.318 [1.079-1.612], P = .007), benzodiazepine medication (0.574 [0.396-0.827], P = .002), and intramuscular route (1.478 [1.137-1.924], P = .004) were significantly associated with the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score, while the score was negatively associated with cooperation levels during admission (τ = -0.714, P < .001) and inhalation induction (τ = -0.606, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with autism spectrum disorder may be susceptible to premedication with midazolam; however, regular benzodiazepine administration may reduce the effect.

Prospective cohort study to evaluate premedication with simethicone and n-acetilcysteine for upper diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: The use of premedication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is not widely established in western countries. The primary aim of the study was to compare gastric visibility according to the total visibility score (TVS). The secondary aim was to assess complications, diagnostic yield, endoscopic procedure time, sedation dose and patient satisfaction. METHODS: A single center prospective cohort study was performed of consecutive adults undergoing an UGE in the afternoon working shift. After completing enrolment in the control group, patients were administered 200 mg simethicone and 500 mg N-acetylcysteine diluted in 100 ml of water >15 minutes before the procedure. All procedures were recorded and a single, blinded endoscopist evaluated the TVS after recruitment of both cohorts. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Spanish translation of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: 205 patients were included in the study, 103 females (50.2%) with a median age of 54.8-years (IQR: 41.2-65.2). 104 were enrolled to the control group and 101 to the intervention group. Patients receiving premedication presented a higher rate of adequate (74.3% vs 45.2; difference 95% CI: 16,3-41,9%, p<0.001) and excellent gastric visibility (23.8% vs 7.7%; difference 95% CI: 6,3-25,8%, p=0.002). Propofol dose was similar, although the median procedure time was lower in the group of no intervention [5 (IQR: 4-7) vs 6 minutes (IQR: 5-7); p=0.03]. Procedure related adverse events were similar, except that patient without premedication experienced more nausea episodes. Major and minor endoscopic findings and the satisfaction questionnaire showed no differences between both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving premedication with simethicone and N-acetylcysteine had a better gastric visibility score, without any increase in adverse events or affecting the patients' satisfaction.

Premedication prior to PEG-asparaginase is cost-effective in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: PEG-asparaginase is critical in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) therapy but is highly immunogenic. Severe allergic reactions lead to substitution of further PEG-asparaginase with Erwinia. Erwinia is associated with more frequent dosing, increased expense, and limited availability. Premedication may reduce rates of allergic reactions. PROCEDURES: This Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of three strategies: premedication plus therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), TDM alone, and no premedication or TDM. We modeled two scenarios: a standard-risk (SR) B-ALL patient receiving two asparaginase doses and a high-risk (HR) patient receiving seven asparaginase doses. The model incorporated costs of asparaginase, premedication, TDM and clinic visits, and lost parental wages associated with each additional Erwinia dose. We incorporated a five-year time horizon with a societal perspective. Outcomes were Erwinia substitutions avoided and differences in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses evaluated model uncertainty. RESULTS: In both scenarios, premedication was the least costly strategy. In SR and HR scenarios, premedication with monitoring resulted in 8% and 7% fewer changes to Erwinia compared with monitoring alone and 3% and 2% fewer changes compared with no premedication/monitoring, respectively. Premedication resulted in the most QALYs gained in the SR patients. Individual variation of model inputs did not change premedication/monitoring favorability for either scenario. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, premedication/monitoring was favored in >87% of iterations in both scenarios. CONCLUSION: Compared with other strategies, premedication use and asparaginase level monitoring in children with B-ALL is potentially cost-saving.

Premedication with reformulated simethicone and sodium bicarbonate improves mucosal visibility during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The reformulated simethicone emulsion from Berlin Chemical AG might develop white flocculate precipitate covering the gastric mucosa when used before esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). We aim to investigate whether combining the reformulated simethicone emulsion with 5% sodium bicarbonate solution could prevent the development of white precipitate and improve visibility during EGD. METHODS: Our clinical study involved 523 patients. They were randomly assigned to two groups. In Group A, patients received a warm solution containing 30 ml 5% sodium bicarbonate solution and 15 ml reformulated simethicone emulsion. In Group B, patients received 45 ml 40 °C lukewarm water. Visibility scores were recorded and analyzed. Flushes, volume of flush water, overall time taken for EGD and complications during or after the procedure were also recorded. RESULTS: We found that no white precipitate was observed during EGD in Group A. Moreover, visibility scores in Group A were significantly lower (P < 0.01). Patients in Group A had fewer flushes (P < 0.01) and smaller volume of flush water (P < 0.01). In addition, the overall time taken for the EGD procedure was significantly shorter in Group A (P < 0.01). The percentage of patients who had no adverse response was significantly higher in Group A than in Group B (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with a mixed solution of 15 ml reformulated simethicone emulsion and 30 ml 5% sodium bicarbonate solution can prevent the development of white precipitate, substantially enhancing mucosal visibility safely. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The registered name of the trial is "Efficacy of using premedication with reformulated simethicone emulsion during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy examination". Its Current Controlled Trials number is ChiCTR1900021689. Its date of registration is 11 September 2019. Retrospectively registered, http://www.medresman.org.cn/uc/sindex.aspx .

Autistic patients: a retrospective study on their dental needs and the behavioural approach.

INTRODUCTION: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a lifelong heterogeneous psychiatric disorder that represents a challenge for dentists. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse ASD patients' dental needs and to investigate key factors influencing the behavioural management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eighteen ASD subjects (levels 2 and 3 of the DSM-5), adults and children, treated at university dental hospital, were included. For each of them, an index card was created to record general and medical information, dental care progress and treatment management. Data were analysed to characterize this specific population in terms of dental needs, technical approach and follow-up. The relationships between care approach and age (ANOVA test), care approach and concomitant pathologies as well as care approach and required treatment (chi-square test) were evaluated. RESULTS: Almost all patients required oral care. No treatment could be provided under conscious conditions. Oral premedication and/or nitrous oxide/oxygen inhalation was significantly more efficient in children and allowed conservative procedures. In adults, general anaesthesia was significantly more employed. Few patients were followed up over a long period. CONCLUSIONS: The variety of autism spectrum disorders complicates the statement of guidelines for dental care. The development of the collaboration between psychiatrics and dentists emerges as a key factor to improve the quality and the success of oral outpatient treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Oral premedication and/or nitrous oxide/oxygen inhalation at high dose represented a good way to carry out conservative dental cares, with a significant efficiency in children. Nevertheless, in a considerable number of ASD patients, especially in adults, general anaesthesia could not be avoided.

Limited Evidence Suggests Premedication With Corticosteroids May Help Relieve Postoperative Endodontic Pain in Patients With Symptomatic Pulpitis Undergoing Single-Visit Root Canal Treatment.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Effect of preoperative corticosteroids in patients with symptomatic pulpitis on postoperative pain after single-visit root canal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Suneelkumar C, Subha A, Gogala D. J Endod 2018; 44(9):1347-54. SOURCE OF FUNDING: Not provided. TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of data.

Effect of premedication on lesion detection rate and visualization of the mucosa during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a multicenter large sample randomized controlled double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Premedication in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for higher lesions detection rate has not been well studied so far. This study aimed to confirm whether premedication could improve the detection rate of early cancer or precancerous lesions and mucosal visibility. METHOD: From July 2015 to December 2015, 7200 participants from 6 centers were screened by endoscopy with one of the 4 following premedications randomly: (1) water (group D); (2) pronase (group A); (3) simethicone (group B); (4) pronase and simethicone (group C). Early cancer and precancerous lesions detection rates were taken as the primary endpoints, and mucosal visibility was taken as the secondary endpoint. They were compared among four groups to determine different premedication effects in terms of different anatomical sites. Trial was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; the registration number is ChiCTR-IOR-17010985. RESULTS: The upper gastrointestinal overall precancerous lesion detection rates among four groups were 8.7, 8.4, 10.0, and 10.3%, the overall early cancer detection rates were 1.3, 1.4%, 1.5, and 1.6%, both without significant difference (p = 0.138 and 0.878). However, the visibility score distributions between control group (D) and premedication groups (A, B, and C) were all statistically significant, with all anatomical sites p values < 0.001. Subgroup analyses, from 2 centers without screening before, also showed significant difference in esophageal (3.9, 3.3, 4.5, and 8.4% with p = 0.004) and overall (7.0, 5.5, 7.3, and 12.0% with p = 0.004) precancerous lesion detection rate. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with pronase and simethicone may not increase lesion detection rates but could significantly increase the upper gastrointestinal mucosal visibility.

Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy-parameters and correlations of postoperative pain management.

OBJECTIVES: Postoperative pain management is of utmost interest for patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. Currently, there is a lack of information regarding process and outcome parameters of postoperative pain management after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective clinical study, 31 adults were evaluated on the first postoperative day following bilateral sagittal split osteotomy using the standardized questionnaire of the Germany-wide project Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Management (QUIPS). It allows a standardized assessment of patients' characteristics, pain parameters, outcome, and pain therapy process parameters. RESULTS: Pain management consisted mainly of premedication with midazolam, sufentanil, and metamizol intraoperatively; piritramide in the recovery room; and metamizol and tramadol on ward. Twenty patients (64.5%) showed inadequate pain management with pain levels ≥4. Patients receiving tramadol as opioid on ward presented significantly higher maximum pain levels (p = .037). Significantly lower satisfaction with postoperative pain intensity (p > .001) and significantly higher desire for additional pain medication (p = .023) were detected, when duration of surgery was above the median of 107.5 min. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate pain management on the first postoperative day following bilateral sagittal split osteotomy was widespread on our ward. QUIPS helped us to identify it and thereby gave us the possibility to improve the situation. Prolonged duration of surgery seems to be a predictor of an elevated postoperative pain medication demand. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Only the establishment of an ongoing monitoring of postoperative pain management can help to reduce or even avoid inadequate postoperative pain management. In accordance to the existing literature, we found inadequate postoperative pain management more widespread than thought.

Efficacy and safety of using premedication with simethicone/Pronase during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy examination with sedation: A single center, prospective, single blinded, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of premedication with simethicone/Pronase during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with sedation. METHODS: Six hundred and ten patients were randomly allocated to two groups based on type of premedication given. Premedication used in the control group was 10 mL lidocaine hydrochloride mucilage (LHM, N = 314) and premedication used in the intervention group was 80 mL simethicone/Pronase solution plus 10 mL lidocaine hydrochloride mucilage (SP/LHM, N = 296). EGD was done under sedation. Visibility scores, number of mucosal areas that needed cleansing, water consumption for cleansing, time taken for examination, diminutive lesions, pathological diagnosis, patients' gag reflex and oxygenation (pulse oximetry) were recorded. RESULTS: SP/LHM has significantly lower total visibility score than LHM (7.978 ± 1.526 vs 6.348 ± 1.097, P < 0.01). During the procedure, number of intragastric areas that needed cleansing and amount of water consumed were significantly less in the SP/LHM than in the LHM group (P < 0.01). In SP/LHM (P = 0.01), endoscopy procedure duration was significantly longer. Although there was no significant difference in rate of detection of diminutive lesions between LHM and SP/LHM, the endoscopist carried out more biopsies in SP/LHM. This led to a higher rate of diagnosis of atrophic gastritis (P = 0.014) and intestinal metaplasia (P = 0.024). There was no significant difference in gag reflex (P = 0.604) and oxygenation during the endoscopy procedure for either group of patients. CONCLUSION: Routine use of premedication with simethicone/Pronase should be recommended during EGD with sedation.

Premedication with simethicone and N-acetylcysteine in improving visibility during upper endoscopy: a double-blind randomized trial.

Background and study aim Upper endoscopy is the most common method for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal tract diseases. The aim of this study was to determine whether premedication with simethicone or N-acetylcysteine improves mucosal visualization during upper endoscopy. Patients and methods This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 297 patients scheduled for upper endoscopy who were premedicated 15 - 30 minutes before the procedure with: 100 mL of water (placebo, group A); water plus 100 mg simethicone (group B); water plus 100 mg simethicone plus 600 mg N-acetylcysteine (group C). The primary outcome measure was the quality of mucosal visualization (score: excellent, adequate or inadequate). Results The addition of simethicone (group B) or simethicone plus N-acetylcysteine to the water (group C) improved the visualization scores of endoscopies compared with water alone (group A). In particular, groups B and C produced a significantly higher percentage of endoscopies with excellent visualization for the esophagus (91.1 % and 86.7 %, respectively, vs. 71.4 % in group A; P < 0.001) and stomach (76.2 % and 74.5 % vs. 38.8 % in group A; P < 0.001). For the duodenum, the use of simethicone also showed an increase in the endoscopies with excellent visualization compared with water alone (85.1 % vs. 73.5 %; P = 0.042). There were no significant differences in scores between groups B and C or between gastric scores in patients with previous subtotal gastrectomy (B and C vs. A): 60.0 % and 42.1 % vs. 28.6 % (P = 0.14). The rate of reported lesions was higher in group B but without statistical significance. Conclusions Premedication with simethicone resulted in better mucosal visibility. Such premedication might improve diagnostic yield, and should be considered for standard practice. Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02357303).

Can Preoperative Intramuscular Single-Dose Dexamethasone Improve Patient-Centered Outcomes Following Third Molar Surgery?

PURPOSE: Because of increased attention focused on administering dexamethasone to treat third molar surgical complications, this study investigated the efficacy of single-dose dexamethasone in managing postoperative complications after impacted third molar surgery. Pain intensity and analgesic intake, patients' discomfort, limitation of oral function, and limitation of daily activities were assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This triple-blinded split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial included patients 18 to 30 years old who underwent randomized bilateral extractions of impacted mandibular third molars during 2 consecutive sessions. Each patient was given a single-dose intramuscular injection of dexamethasone (0.1 mg/kg) preoperatively in 1 session and a placebo in the other session. Data were collected daily for 7 postoperative days, and 14 patient-centered outcomes were interpreted. A 2-tailed P value less than .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: All 32 patients (100%) enrolled completed the study. When administered dexamethasone, patients reported less pain (P ≤ .007), took fewer analgesics (P ≤ .002), reported less swelling (P ≤ .007), had less difficulty in eating (P ≤ .024), had less difficulty in enjoying food (P ≤ .005), had less difficulty in speech (P = .043), had less trismus (P = .005), were absent less from school or work (P ≤ .016), and had less disruption of daily activity (P ≤ .042). The differences between the 2 conditions in bleeding, malaise, and sleep disturbance were not significant (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic dexamethasone administered intramuscularly before third molar surgery should be recommended as a safe and effective strategy for decreasing pain and discomfort and enhancing oral functions and daily activities, unless contraindicated.

Spanish consensus guidelines on prophylaxis with bypassing agents for surgery in patients with haemophilia and inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with severe haemophilia and inhibitors against factor VIII who require surgery need a prophylactic approach to prevent bleeding complications. Scientific evidence to decide the best prophylactic treatment is very limited and mainly based on retrospective or case series. AIMS: To develop evidence- and expert opinion-based guidelines for prophylactic therapy for patients with haemophilia and inhibitors undergoing surgery. METHODS: A panel of nine Spanish haematologists undertook a systematic review of the literature and selected publications providing relevant information regarding the prophylactic management of patients with haemophilia and inhibitors undergoing dental extraction, minor surgery or major surgery. RESULTS: Although evidence is very limited, the panel considers that it seems advisable that prophylaxis should be given in most cases with a bypassing agent (aPCC or rFVIIa) and should start immediately before minor or major surgery. Patients should be closely monitored to enable dose/product modification as needed. CONCLUSION: It is necessary to communicate clinical experience in a detailed way in order to ensure optimal schemes of prophylaxis for patients with haemophilia and inhibitors. Development of objective outcomes to evaluate efficacy is crucial.

Effects of a Single-Dose of Pre-Emptive Pregabalin on Postoperative Pain and Opioid Consumption After Double-Jaw Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The effect of a single-dose of pre-emptive pregabalin is still unknown, although it is used as an adjuvant in controlling acute postoperative pain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of pre-emptive single-dose pregabalin on postoperative acute pain and 24-hour opioid consumption in patients who underwent double-jaw surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients (18 to 45 yr old; American Society of Anesthesiologists status I to II) for whom elective double-jaw surgery was planned under general anesthesia were included in this study, which had been planned as a prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: the pregabalin group (n = 20) was given pregabalin 150 mg orally 1 hour before general anesthesia and the placebo group (n = 20) was given an oral placebo capsule. The groups were administered the routine general anesthesia protocol. Postoperative analgesia was performed intravenously in the 2 groups twice a day with dexketoprofen trometamol 50 mg and patient-controlled analgesia with fentanyl. Postoperative analgesia was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS). Fentanyl consumption, additional analgesia requirement, and side-effects were recorded during the first 24 hours after surgery. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed, and significance was set at a P value less than .05. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, the VAS score was statistically lower in the pregabalin group during the early postoperative period (P < .05). The 24-hour opioid consumption was significantly higher in the placebo group compared with the pregabalin group (509.40 ± 261.56 vs. 260.10 ± 246.53 µq, respectively; P = .004). In addition, the analgesia requirement was statistically lower in the pregabalin group (P < .05). Nausea or vomiting was observed more often in the placebo group, whereas other side-effects were similar for the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: A single 150-mg dose of pre-emptive pregabalin decreased postoperative opioid consumption in the first 24 hours after double-jaw surgery. Multimodal analgesia techniques that contain pre-emptive analgesia can be used successfully in preventing postoperative pain caused by orthognathic surgery.

Botulinum Toxin Type A as Preoperative Treatment for Immediately Loaded Dental Implants Placed in Fresh Extraction Sockets for Full-Arch Restoration of Patients With Bruxism.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present report was to describe the use of Botulinum toxin type A as preoperative treatment for immediately loaded dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets for full-arch restoration of patients with bruxism. METHODS: Patients with bruxism who were scheduled to receive immediately loaded full-arch implant supported fixed restorations were included in this retrospective clinical report. To reduce the occlusal forces applied in patients with bruxism, Botulinum toxin type A was introduced prior to the implant placement procedure. Patients were followed and implant survival as well as peri-implant bone level was assessed in each periodic follow-up visit. Adverse effects were also recorded. A control group with no use of Botulinum toxin was evaluated as well. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients (13 test and 13 control), with bruxism, aged 59.15 ±â€Š11.43 years on average were included in this retrospective report and received immediately loaded dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets for full-arch restoration. The test group treatment preceded by Botulinum toxin type A injection. Maxillary arches were supported by 8 to 10 implants while the mandibular arch was supported by 6 implants. All surgeries went uneventfully and no adverse effects were observed. The average follow-up time was 32.5 ±â€Š10.4 months (range, 18-51). In the test group, no implant failures were recorded. One patient presented with 1 to 2 mm bone loss around 4 of the implants; the other implants presented with stable bone level. In the control group 1 patient lost 2 implants and another demonstrated 2 mm bone loss around 3 of the implants. CONCLUSIONS: The preoperative use of Botulinum toxin in patients with bruxism undergoing full-arch rehabilitation using immediately loaded dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets seems to be a technique that deserves attention. Further long-term, large-scale randomized clinical trials will help to determine the additional benefit of this suggested treatment modality.

Steroid Prophylaxis: The knowledge and practices of New Zealand General Dental Practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the knowledge and practices of New Zealand (NZ) General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) concerning the use of steroid prophylaxis. METHODS: An online survey was conducted in 2013 involving a sample of 500 NZ GDPs who met inclusion criteria and had email addresses on the Dental Council register. RESULTS: A total of 214 dentists responded, giving a 44.5% response rate after accounting for undelivered questionnaires. Nearly two-thirds (61 .7%) did not currently recommend corticosteroid prophylaxis, although nearly three-quarters (74.8%) believed that dental treatment posed a potential risk to patients with adrenal suppression. Over half (53.4%) believed that oral corticosteroids could cause adrenocortical suppression, and a similar proportion (58.3%) believed that a specific dose of oral prednisolone of 7.5 mg per day could do so. Most practitioners (79.6%) supported the formulation of steroid prophylaxis guidelines. CONCLUSION: Despite most NZ GDPs believing the dental setting to pose a risk of adrenal crisis for patients taking corticosteroids, there is some confusion among dentists identifying at-risk patients and their ability to manage if such an event was to occur in their practices. There is further confusion over whether steroid prophylaxis is warranted for perceived at-risk patients, and which regime to follow when it is. There is an associated tendency to be over-cautious when determining the need for steroid prophylaxis, and to rely on their undergraduate steroid prophylaxis guidelines when doing so. There is a need for evidence-based guidelines to be formulated by an expert panel.

Intra Operative Use of Anti Emetic Drugs for Children Undergoing Full Dental Rehabilitation under General Anesthesia. A Double Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following dental treatment under general anesthesia (DGA) that may lead to unplanned hospitalization, increased costs and dissatisfaction of parents. AIM: To investigate the incidence of Postoperative Vomiting (POV) on children who underwent dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia and to compare possible preventive effect of Dexamethasone and Ondansetron on occurrences of POV. STUDY DESIGN: A double blind randomized parallel clinical trial was carried out on 352 ASA I children who underwent DGA in a private Saudi hospital in Jeddah. Children were allocated randomly to four groups. Group D of 91 children, received Dexamethasone PONV prophylaxis, group O of 87 children received Ondansetron, group DO of 93 children received combination of the two drugs and group C the control group of 81 children. The three groups were investigated by blinded dental staff for POV episodes, number of times analgesia was needed and post anesthesia care unit time (PACUT). RESULTS: There was a no significant difference between the two drugs on POV. There was a significant difference in POV between control group and groups D, O, and DO. There was significant reduction in need for analgesia in the Dexamethasone groups. The three groups, which had PONV prophylaxis, showed significant reduction in PACUT compared to control group. CONCLUSIONS: Antiemetic drugs are useful adjuncts in DGA. Some dental procedures may have higher emetic potential than others. The type of dental procedures done is to be considered when deciding the drug profile in children undergoing DGA.

A comparative evaluation of nebulized dexmedetomidine, nebulized ketamine, and their combination as premedication for outpatient pediatric dental surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of nebulized dexmedetomidine, nebulized ketamine, and the combination of these drugs for premedication in pediatric outpatient dental surgeries. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was conducted in the Alexandria Main University Hospital after approval of the Medical Ethics Committee. Informed written consent was obtained from the patient's parents. Sixty children classified as ASA physical status I and II and aged 3 to 6 years were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly categorized into 3 equal groups. Group K was premedicated with nebulized ketamine (2 mg/kg), group D was premedicated with nebulized dexmedetomidine (2 µg/kg), and group DK was premedicated with combined nebulized dexmedetomidine and ketamine (1 µg/kg + 1 mg/kg). The primary end point was the level of sedation when the child was first seen in the operating room 30 minutes after sedation. The secondary end points were tolerance of mask induction, hemodynamic changes, analgesia, sedation at emergence, and wake-up behavior. RESULTS: Studied groups were comparable as regards demographic data (age, weight, sex, and ASA physical status, all P > 0.226) and patients' acceptance of drugs (P = 0.968). Level of sedation at 30 minutes was significantly greater in group DK than in either group K (P = 0.003) or group D (P = 0.009). Group DK had the briefest recovery times, followed in order by group K and group D with progressively longer recovery times. Recovery times were significantly briefer in group DK than in either group K (P = 0.039) or group D (P < 0.001). Group DK had significantly briefer discharge times than group D (P < 0.001). Postoperative analgesia was significantly better in group DK compared with group K (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: A nebulized combination of low-dose ketamine and dexmedetomidine produced more satisfactory sedation and provided a smoother induction of general anesthesia than nebulized ketamine or dexmedetomidine alone, with more rapid recovery and no significant side effects.

Decision making in third molar surgery: a survey of Brazilian oral and maxillofacial surgeons.

This study was designed to evaluate the variations in decision making among Brazilian oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS) and trainees in relation to third molar surgery. A survey on 18 diverse clinical situations related to the assessment and treatment of the third molar surgeries was conducted during the 20th Brazilian National OMFS meeting. Participants were divided into three groups according to their level of training. Another variable studied was length of experience. Correlation between the question answers and the variables was analysed using the chi-square test and the f test. The mean age of participants was 32.68 years, and their mean length of experience was 5.24 years. There were no statistical differences between the level of training and number of years of experience and the responses to 15 of the 18 questions on clinical situations. However, differences were found in responses to prophylactic extraction of asymptomatic third molars, use of non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) during the preoperative surgical period and the use of additional imaging to plan extractions. The group with shorter time of experience (3.8 ± 3.94 years) tended to recommend extractions of asymptomatic third molars more frequently compared with the more experienced surgeons (P = 0.041). More experienced surgeons used NSAIDs in the preoperative surgical period, whereas the majority of the youngest surgeons (4.1 ± 5.96 years of experience) did not (P = 0.0042). The certificated trained and in practice group tended to treat deep lower third molar impactions based on the findings of a panoramic radiograph, without obtaining additional imaging [cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)] before treatment (P = 0.0132). Decision making regarding third molar treatment differs according to the level of training and is influenced by the number of years of experience. Therefore, further continuous education programmes in this area are warranted to make recommendations regarding third molars consistent with the current literature.