Does computerized anaesthesia reduce pain during local anaesthesia in paediatric patients for dental treatment? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-135
Author(s):  
Priscila de Camargo Smolarek ◽  
Letícia M. Wambier ◽  
Leonardo Siqueira Silva ◽  
Ana Cláudia Rodrigues Chibinski
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Melini ◽  
Andrea Forni ◽  
Francesco Cavallin ◽  
Matteo Parotto ◽  
Gastone Zanette

Abstract Background: Dental anxiety is a condition associated with avoidance of dental treatment and increased medical and surgical risks. This systematic review aims to summarize available evidence on conscious sedation techniques used for the management of Dental anxiety in patients scheduled for third molar extraction surgery, to identify best approaches and knowledge gaps. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted including MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through March 2019. Only randomized controlled trials were included. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Risk of bias was appraised as reported in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: Seventeen RCTs with a total of 1,788 patients were included. Some aspects limited the feasibility of a meaningful meta-analysis, thus a narrative synthesis was conducted. Conscious sedation was associated with improvement in Dental anxiety in six studies. One study reported lower cortisol levels with midazolam vs. placebo, while another study found significant variation in perioperative renin levels with remifentanil vs. placebo. Conclusions: This review found inconclusive and conflicting findings about the role of Conscious sedation in managing Dental anxiety during third molar extraction surgery. Relevant questions remain unanswered due to the lack of consistent, standardized outcome measures. Future research may benefit from addressing these limitations in study design.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0249788
Author(s):  
Md Asiful Islam ◽  
Shoumik Kundu ◽  
Sayeda Sadia Alam ◽  
Tareq Hossan ◽  
Mohammad Amjad Kamal ◽  
...  

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 started to spread globally since December 2019 from Wuhan, China. Fever has been observed as one of the most common clinical manifestations, although the prevalence and characteristics of fever in adult and paediatric COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of fever and chills in addition to fever characteristics (low, medium, and high temperature) in both adult and paediatric COVID-19 patients. Methods The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020176327). PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar databases were searched between 1st December 2019 and 3rd April 2020 without language restrictions. Both adult (≥18 years) and paediatric (<18 years) COVID-19 patients were considered eligible. We used random-effects model for the meta-analysis to obtain the pooled prevalence and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic and Cochran’s Q test. Robustness of the pooled estimates was checked by different subgroups and sensitivity analyses. Results We identified 2055 studies, of which 197 studies (n = 24266) were included in the systematic review and 167 studies with 17142 adults and 373 paediatrics were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence of fever in adult and paediatric COVID-19 patients were 79.43% [95% CI: 77.05–81.80, I2 = 95%] and 45.86% [95% CI: 35.24–56.48, I2 = 78%], respectively. Besides, 14.45% [95% CI: 10.59–18.32, I2 = 88%] of the adult COVID-19 patients were accompanied with chills. In adult COVID-19 patients, the prevalence of medium-grade fever (44.33%) was higher compared to low- (38.16%) and high-grade fever (14.71%). In addition, the risk of both low (RR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.69–3.22, p<0.00001, I2 = 84%) and medium grade fever (RR: 2.79, 95% CI: 2.21–3.51, p<0.00001, I2 = 75%) were significantly higher compared to high-grade fever, however, there was no significant difference between low- and medium-grade fever (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.94–1.44, p = 0.16, I2 = 87%). 88.8% of the included studies were of high-quality. The sensitivity analyses indicated that our findings of fever prevalence for both adult and paediatric patients are reliable and robust. Conclusions The prevalence of fever in adult COVID-19 patients was high, however, 54.14% of paediatric COVID-19 patients did not exhibit fever as an initial clinical feature. Prevalence and risk of low and medium-grade fevers were higher compared to high-grade fever.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 2171-2183
Author(s):  
Ali Yasen Y. Mohamedahmed ◽  
Stephen Stonelake ◽  
Salma Saeed S. Mohammed ◽  
Shafquat Zaman ◽  
Hatim Ahmed ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e046798
Author(s):  
Dengfeng Liu ◽  
Li Pan ◽  
Yin Gao ◽  
Jiefan Liu ◽  
Feng Li ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo systematically assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine as an anaesthesia adjuvant for cleft lip and palate (CLP) repair in children.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) and Wanfang (up to October 2020). Studies in languages other than English and Chinese were excluded.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of dexmedetomidine on emergence agitation (EA), the need for postoperative rescue analgesics, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and other adverse events in paediatric patients during CLP repair.Data extraction and synthesisThe quality of evidence was assessed by using the Cochrane Review Methods and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data were screened, extracted and assessed by two independent authors. Outcomes were reported as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% CI. A random-effect model was used when heterogeneity was detected.ResultsThirteen studies including 1040 children met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of EA was significantly decreased in the dexmedetomidine group (RR, 0.19; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.36; p<0.00001; I2=56%) as compared with the control group. Paediatric patients receiving dexmedetomidine had lower postoperative analgesic requirements (RR, 0.27; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.73; p=0.01; I2=84%) and a lower incidence of respiratory adverse events (RR, 0.49; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.78; p=0.003; I2=0%). There were no significant differences in the risk of PONV and cardiovascular adverse events.ConclusionsThere was a lack of high-quality studies in this field. Perioperative administration of dexmedetomidine reduced the need for postoperative rescue analgesics and the incidence of EA in children without side effects undergoing CLP repair. However, further verification with larger samples and higher-quality RCTs is needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document