Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 64, Issue 9 , Pages 1353-1358, September 2006

Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam in Outpatient Third Molar Surgery

  • Yakup Üstün, DDS, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Üstün: Çukurova Üniversitesi Dişhekimliği Fakültesi, Ağız Diş Çene Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, 01330 Balcalı-Yüreğir, Adana, Turkey
  • ,
  • Murat Gündüz, MD

      Affiliations

    • Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
  • ,
  • Özgür Erdoğan, DDS

      Affiliations

    • Research Assistant, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
  • ,
  • M. Emre Benli̇dayi, DDS

      Affiliations

    • Research Assistant, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the use of dexmedetomidine with the use of midazolam during intravenous conscious sedation in third molar surgery.

Patients and Methods

Twenty healthy patients with symmetrically impacted mandibular third molars were included in this double-blind, crossover, randomized study. Either dexmedetomidine (group D) (4 μg·kg−1·h−1) or midazolam (group M) (0.4 mg·kg−1·h−1) was administered intravenously for 15 minutes before the first operation. At the second operation, the other agent was applied. Cardiorespiratory data were collected. The intraoperative sedation level, patient cooperation, and postoperative performance were scored and any pain reaction during the local anesthetic injection was recorded. Visual analog scales were additionally used for the subjective assessment of pain and patient satisfaction. Amnesia was evaluated by the patients’ ability to recall the objects shown during the operations and the local anesthetic injection. Patients’ preferences were recorded during the interview at the end of the second operations.

Results

The mean heart rate and blood pressure measurements were significantly lower in group D. There was no significant difference in the respiratory findings. A significantly higher number of patients showed pain reactions in group M. Sedation level, postoperative performance, and VAS pain scores were not statistically significant, whereas the differences in cooperation score and VAS for patient satisfaction were significant. Adequate amnesia was obtained in group M, however, no amnesia was demonstrated in group D. Sixty-five percent of the patients indicated a preference for dexmedetomidine sedation.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine may be a remarkable alternative to midazolam for intravenous sedation because it seems to be a reliable and safe method, with additional analgesic effect providing a satisfactory sedation level without any serious side effects during impacted third molar surgery.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0278-2391(06)00671-9

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2006.05.020

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 64, Issue 9 , Pages 1353-1358, September 2006