Why the study?
Does intravenous midazolam improve sedation outcomes compared to intravenous diazepam in patients undergoing third molar extraction?
Does intravenous midazolam improve sedation outcomes compared to intravenous diazepam in patients undergoing third molar extraction?
Intravenous midazolam provides superior sedation characteristics compared to diazepam for dental surgery in Hong Kong Chinese patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports preferring midazolam over diazepam for third molar extraction sedation; confirms patient advantages and extends RCT evidence in dental procedures.
Fifty Hong Kong Chinese patients between 20-40 years, of ASA Gd I, undergoing third molar extraction were randomly allocated into two groups. For conscious sedation, to supplement local anaesthesia, one group received intravenous diazepam and the other intravenous midazolam. The majority in the study had never heard of intravenous sedation being available to supplement local anaesthesia during dental surgery and when given the chance to experience this method the majority found it highly acceptable. None preferred general anaesthesia for dental surgery. In this study midazolam had more advantages to the patient than diazepam; quicker onset of sedation, less pain during injection, profound anterograde amnesia and fewer postoperative complications being the main features. However, both drugs produced good operating conditions. Incidence of thrombophlebitis was low with both drugs, and may be so in Chinese compared with non-Chinese.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodrigo et al. (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: