Skip to main content
Sign inSign up

ADSA Society

Logo
IssuesFor AuthorsAdvertisingNewsHelp

ADSA Society

Article Contents

  • Abstract
  • MATERIALS AND METHODS
  • RESULTS
  • DISCUSSION
  • CONCLUSION
  • REFERENCES
Save
Download PDF

Abstract

Twenty-four patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. Intraoperatively, one group received a continuous intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine alone, whereas the other received a continuous dexmedetomidine infusion plus a small dose of midazolam. Early measurements of patient anxiety and psychomotor performance were lower in patients who had received midazolam. This difference was not seen later in the appointment. An amnesic effect was observed in those patients who received midazolam. This effect, however, did not translate into increased patient satisfaction in the group receiving midazolam. Our findings suggest a prolonged discharge time for patients who had been given midazolam that may be clinically significant. Overall, dexmedetomidine showed an unpredictable sedative response and may be less practical than more common alternatives for oral surgery procedures.

Keywords: Dexmedetomidine; Anesthesiology; Oral surgery; Sedation; Third molars
  • Download PDF
Citations

Get Email Alerts

Article Contents
ANPR logo
AboutIssuesAuthor InformationSubscriptions

ADSA Society

eISSN: 1878-7177

ISSN: 0003-3006

Powered by PubFactory