Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol and Fentanyl for Deep Sedation/General Anesthesia during Third Molar Surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 77 (9) ◽  
pp. e63-e64
Author(s):  
J. Delgadillo ◽  
P. Nolan ◽  
J. Jones ◽  
J. Youssef ◽  
A. Chehrehsa
1989 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T. Dachowski ◽  
Robert Kalayjian ◽  
John C. Angelillo ◽  
Edward A. Dolan

2006 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 339-343
Author(s):  
Edward J. Vanisky ◽  
Jeffrey S. Almony ◽  
Andrew J. Wargo ◽  
Joseph C. Sniezek

2012 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 107-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle J. Kramer ◽  
Steven Ganzberg ◽  
Simon Prior ◽  
Robert G. Rashid

This study aimed to compare continuous intravenous infusion combinations of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation for surgical extraction of all 4 third molars. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled study, participants received 1 of 2 sedative combinations for deep sedation for the surgery. Both groups initially received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg for baseline sedation. The control group then received a combination of propofol-remifentanil in a ratio of 10 mg propofol to 5 μg of remifentanil per milliliter, and the experimental group received a combination of propofol-ketamine in a ratio of 10 mg of propofol to 2.5 mg of ketamine per milliliter; both were given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 100 μg/kg/min. Each group received an induction loading bolus of 500 μg/kg of the assigned propofol combination along with the appropriate continuous infusion combination . Measured outcomes included emergence and recovery times, various sedation parameters, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, patient and surgeon satisfaction, postoperative course, and associated drug costs. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated similar sedation parameters and hemodynamic and respiratory stability; however, the ketamine group had prolonged emergence (13.6 ± 6.6 versus 7.1 ± 3.7 minutes, P = .0009) and recovery (42.9 ± 18.7 versus 24.7 ± 7.6 minutes, P = .0004) times. The prolonged recovery profile of continuously infused propofol-ketamine may limit its effectiveness as an alternative to propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation for third molar extraction and perhaps other short oral surgical procedures, especially in the ambulatory dental setting.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 2674
Author(s):  
Jeong-Kui Ku ◽  
Jae-Young Kim ◽  
Mi-Kyoung Jun ◽  
Yeong Kon Jeong ◽  
Jong-Ki Huh

This study examined the effects of general anesthesia on the postoperative pain level after third molar extractions compared to local anesthesia. This retrospective study included patients who underwent four simultaneous third molar extractions under general or local anesthesia and had records of their postoperative pain levels (visual analog scale, VAS). The pain level was determined in the early (Postoperative day; POD < #3) and late (POD #3-7) periods. The operation time and recently modified difficulty index were analyzed to validate the homogenous condition of the extraction. Of the 227 male inpatients (aged 20.9 ± 1.3 years), 172 and 55 patients underwent third molar extractions under local and general anesthesia, respectively. The age and difficulty index were distributed equally, but the operation time was longer in general anesthesia than in local anesthesia (p < 0.001). The early and late periods featured similar pain outcomes. The operation time correlated with the total periods with a correlation coefficient of 0.271 (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the postoperative pain following whole third molar extraction was related to the operation time rather than the anesthetic methods.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document