Skip to content
Log in
Open access

Efficacy and Safety of Nitrous Oxide and Midazolam Sedation Protocols in Pediatric Dentistry: A Multicenter Clinical Retrospective Study

Lucia Giannini N. Cenzato G. Menozzi Alessandra Gianfiori G. Dipalma C. Maspero
Jul 2026 · Children · Vol 13, pp. 956 · 0 citations · 43 references
Medicine

TL;DR

Outpatient conscious sedation with titrated nitrous oxide/oxygen, alone or combined with midazolam, enabled the successful completion of all planned complex dental and minor oral surgical procedures in selected uncooperative pediatric and special needs patients.

Abstract

Highlights What are the main findings? Outpatient conscious sedation with titrated nitrous oxide/oxygen, alone or combined with midazolam, enabled the successful completion of all planned complex dental and minor oral surgical procedures in selected uncooperative pediatric and special needs patients. No procedure required conversion to deep intravenous sedation or general anesthesia, and no major adverse events or airway emergencies were observed. What are the implications of the main findings? Appropriate patient selection, behavioral management and clinician expertise may allow complex pediatric dental procedures to be completed under conscious sedation in selected patients. Dedicated outpatient Conscious Sedation Units may provide an additional treatment pathway for selected pediatric patients; however, their effect on access to care, hospital-resource utilization, and costs requires dedicated comparative evaluation. Abstract Aim: This two-center retrospective observational study evaluated whether outpatient conscious sedation protocols based on titrated nitrous oxide/oxygen, midazolam, or their combination enabled complex dental and minor oral surgical procedures to be completed in uncooperative pediatric and special needs patients, without escalation to deep intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. Materials and Methods: Forty pediatric and special needs patients treated at the Conscious Sedation Units of Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico (Milan, Italy) and Policlinico of Bari (Bari, Italy) were included. Overall, 60 complex dental or minor oral surgical procedures were performed. Procedures were classified according to the sedation protocol administered: Protocol A, nitrous oxide/oxygen inhalation sedation alone; Protocol B, midazolam alone; and Protocol C, combined midazolam and nitrous oxide/oxygen sedation. Vital signs were monitored before, during, and after treatment. The primary outcome was successful procedural completion, defined as completion of the planned procedure without premature termination, escalation to deep intravenous sedation or general anesthesia, or the need for unplanned airway or emergency medical intervention. Results: Forty patients underwent 60 procedures. The mean age was 8.7 ± 2.3 years (range, 4–14 years). Protocol A was used in 24 procedures (40%), Protocol B in 6 procedures (10%), and Protocol C in 30 procedures (50%). All procedures were completed successfully, with no conversion to general anesthesia, no airway crises, and no medical emergencies. Transient elevations in heart rate and blood pressure during local anesthesia occurred in 11/60 procedures (18.3%), and mild self-limiting nausea or fatigue occurred in 5/60 procedures (8.3%). Conclusions: The evaluated protocols were associated with successful procedural completion and few recorded adverse events in this selected cohort. Combined behavioral and pharmacological management was associated with completion of the planned procedures without conversion to deep intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. Comparative studies are required to determine whether these protocols reduce general-anesthesia utilization.

DOI PubMed Semantic Scholar
Read PDF

Similar papers

Open access Jul 2026

Clinical Performance of Nitrous Oxide Inhalation versus Intravenous Sedation in Outpatient Dental Surgery: Efficacy and Safety Outcomes

Intravenous sedation is optimal for profound anxiolysis in complex cases, while nitrous oxide is ideal for routine procedures, prioritizing rapid recovery and fewer side effects.

M. Nahar, Md Toufiqur Rahman, Mohammad Ataul Hasan et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Ketofol vs Propofol Sedation in Advanced Endoscopic Procedures: Impact on Hypoxemia and Airway Intervention

Ketofol sedation was independently associated with a lower risk of hypoxemia than propofol alone in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures, suggesting that ketofol may offer a potential respiratory safety advantage, although prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm this association.

A. Eşbah, Serkan Torun · 0 citations
Review Open access Jul 2026

Intranasal dexmedetomidine vs. nitrous oxide for procedural sedation in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (INDEXJIA): a randomized crossover clinical trial

Both intranasal dexmedetomidine and inhaled nitrous oxide offered effective analgosedation for intra-articular injections in children and Nitrous oxide resulted in better patient experience and became their preference for future sedation.

Miikka Tervonen, O. Peltoniemi, Paula Vähäsalo et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Total Intravenous vs Volatile Inhalational Anesthesia for Major Noncardiac Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance Older adults undergoing major noncardiac surgery experience substantial postoperative morbidity and health care use. The comparative effectiveness of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) vs volatile-based inhalational anesthesia on recovery and safety remains uncertain. Objectives To determine whether TIVA improves days alive and at home at 30 days compared with inhalational anesthesia and to evaluate differences in patient-centered outcomes and recovery. Design, Setting, and Participants Pragmatic, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial conducted in 49 UK National Health Service hospitals from January 2022 to April 2024 (final follow-up, October 2024) among patients aged 50 years or older scheduled for elective major noncardiac surgery. Interventions Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive maintenance of general anesthesia with either TIVA (propofol infusion) (n = 1254) or volatile-based inhalational agents (n = 1254). All other perioperative care was at clinician discretion. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was days alive and at home at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included days alive and at home at 90 days; mortality at 30 days, 90 days, and 6 months; Quality of Recovery-15 score at day 3; patient satisfaction (Bauer Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire) at day 1; delirium (4 As Test [4AT]) at day 3; unintentional awareness under anesthesia; and major postoperative complications within 30 days. Results Among the 2508 randomized participants, the mean age was 67 (SD, 8.9) years, and 55% were male. Characteristics were balanced across randomized groups. Days alive and at home at 30 days were similar between groups (mean, 22.5 [SD, 6.8] days vs 22.4 [SD, 6.6] days for TIVA vs inhalational anesthesia, respectively; incidence rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02; adjusted P = .68). There were no differences in days alive and at home at 90 days; mortality at 30 days, 90 days, or 6 months; or Quality of Recovery-15 score at day 3. Lower rates of thirst, hoarseness, and nausea and vomiting were reported in the TIVA group. Levels of delirium were similar between groups, with the majority (87.6%) having no delirium at day 3. Major complications occurred in 12.4% of patients overall, with no significant between-group differences. Two cases of certain or probable unintentional awareness under anesthesia were reported, both in the TIVA group. Conclusions and Relevance Among older adults undergoing major noncardiac surgery, TIVA did not improve days alive and at home at 30 days compared with inhalational anesthesia. Trial Registration ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN62903453.

S. Jhanji, Katie Booth, Louise Hiller et al. · 1 citation
Open access Aug 2026

Characterizing the Safety and Efficacy of Propofol in Critically Ill Pediatric Patients.

Propofol was safely used to facilitate extubation and decreased baseline sedative exposure when used for sedation washout in a complex critically ill pediatric population and was tolerated by most patients at doses commonly exceeding guideline- recommended maximum rate and duration.

Benjamin Colwell, Ferras Bashqoy, Maria Spilios et al. · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

EFFICACY OF DEXMEDETOMIDINE VERSUS MIDAZOLAM FOR SEDATION IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING REGIONAL ANESTHESIA: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDY

Objectives: The objective of the study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation during regional anesthesia surgery. Methods: This prospective randomized comparative interventional study was conducted in the Department of Anesthesiology at a tertiary care hospital from January 2025 to January 2026. 100 adult patients undergoing elective surgeries under regional anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups: Group D (dexmedetomidine, n=50) and Group M (midazolam, n=50). Richmond agitation sedation scale (RASS) was used to evaluate sedation. Intraoperative monitoring of hemodynamic parameters, such as mean arterial pressure and heart rate, was performed. Recovery characteristics, patient satisfaction, requirement for rescue sedation and adverse effects were also assessed. Results: The mean intraoperative RASS score was significantly lower in the Group D than in the Group M (−2.8±0.5 vs. −2.5±0.7; p=0.02). The time required to reach the target sedation level was significantly greater in Group D (9.4±2.6 min vs. 7.8±2.4 min; p=0.003). The scores of patient satisfaction with dexmedetomidine use were significantly greater than with midazolam use (8.5±1.0 vs. 7.9±1.2; p=0.01). Dexmedetomidine was associated with more adverse effects of bradycardia (p=0.08) and hypotension (p=0.46), whereas midazolam was associated with more adverse effects of excessive sedation (p=0.14) and restlessness (p=0.09). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine and midazolam were both found to be effective sedatives for patients undergoing regional anesthetic. Dexmedetomidine was found to be a more effective sedative, well tolerated, more patient-satisfying and more stable for intraoperative hemodynamic despite its comparatively slower onset of sedation than midazolam.

AVINASH KAREKAL, SRINIVAS KURAHATTI, Rashmi C · 0 citations