Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of CYP2B6 genotype to the clinical response to meperidine in pediatric dental patients. Methods: Twenty-five patients, ASA I/ II, 45–92 months old, received an oral sedative regimen containing meperidine for dental treatment. The North Carolina Behavior Rating Scale (NCBRS) and Overall Effectiveness of Sedation Scale (OESS) were used to assess their behavior and sedation outcome. Saliva DNA samples were genotyped by PCR-RFLP. Results: We found the following genotype distributions: homozygous wild-type 1*1 (n = 8, 32%), heterozygous 1*6 (n = 13, 52%), and homozygous variant 6*6 (n = 4, 16%). The genotypes were predictive of a significant decrease in the overall effectiveness of sedation. Conclusion: Variation in CYP2B6 appears to be predictive of less successful sedations; wild-type individuals experienced more successful sedations than the homozygous variant 6*6. Future research regarding the enzyme kinetics of meperidine is needed to determine the exact enzymatic function of CYP2B6 and its variants.

Purpose: Compare moderate oral sedation of pediatric patients using Hydroxyzine and Meperidine with either Diazepam or Midazolam in management of pediatric dental patients. Methods: Randomized, double-blind, crossover pilot study of patients 3 to 7 years of age requiring two sedation visits. Frankl and Houpt behavior scores recorded at injection time, initiation of treatment and 100% oxygen at end of treatment. Postoperative phone call surveys conducted within eight hours and within 24 hours of discharge. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests, Fisher’s Exact Chi-squared test and 0.10 significance level. Results: 25 subjects completed 35 sedations. Eight participants completed both treatments and demonstrated significantly higher total Houpt Scores with Diazepam at all treatment stages. Frankl scores favored Diazepam at injection time. More abnormal behavior was found with Midazolam, less memory of the visit with Diazepam, but longer sleep time with Diazepam. Conclusions: Sedation with the Hydroxyzine, Meperidine and Diazepam regimen may allow for a better overall sedation experience. Postoperative monitoring is essential. The results are promising and demonstrate the value of a larger study on sedation with Diazepam.

Purpose: To determine whether Bispectral Index Monitoring is an effective tool for quantifying sedation depth after the administration of oral drug regimens in children.Methods: This retrospective study reviewed the charts of 75 children who received oral conscious sedation for dental treatment. Data collected from the chart included; 1) BIS values at 5 minute intervals and at five critical events: pre-operative, local anesthesia delivery, rubber dam placement (if utilized), during operative treatment, and postoperatively, 2) behavior ratings at the five critical events and an overall behavior assessment, 3) treatment data, and 4) demographic data. Results: The mean BIS value for orally sedation children in this study was 84.53 (SD = 5.76). The mean overall sedation assessment was 2.04 (SD = 1.16). No significant correlation was found between BIS values and behavioral ratings.Conclusion: The BIS monitor provided limited information regarding the depth of sedation in children undergoing oral sedation for dental treatment.

Objective: The purpose of the study was to determine if a co-payment resulted in a differential preference for general anesthesia (GA) or oral sedation (OS) and, if so, to examine whether age, the number of appointments, perceived risks of treatment, child's awareness during treatment, or insurance type appeared to play a role in this preference.Methods: Using a cross-sectional survey design, questionnaires were distributed to caregivers of patients in the waiting room of the Virginia Commonwealth University Pediatric Dental Clinic. Two different questionnaires were distributed randomly. Both surveys described a scenario with the need for dental treatment under general anesthesia (GA) or oral conscious sedation (OS). Seventy five surveys required a $50 co-payment for treatment completed under general anesthesia and the other 75 required the same co-payment for treatment completed under oral conscious sedation. Caregivers were asked to choose treatment modalities as well as to rate factors in their decision making including perceived risks and the number of dental visits. Results: Seventy seven survey respondents selected GA as their preferred treatment option for the described scenario. The other sixty six respondents chose OS sedation. For the insured population, the GA/OS odds ratio for the OS-co-payment group versus the GA-co-payment group was OR=2.21 (95% CI = 1.06, 4.60). In terms of the uninsured, the GA/OS odds ratio for the OS-co-payment group versus the GA-co-payment group was OR=17.5 (95% CI = 1.60, 191). The child's age, awareness during treatment, and type of insurance (public versus private) were not significantly related to treatment choice. The importance of the number of appointments was found to be significant (p-value = 0.0170) and outweighed the effect of the co-payment (p-value = 0.1757). The importance of associated risks was found to be significant (p-value = 0.0171) and this outweighed the effect of the co-payment (p-value = 0.8157).Conclusions: The presence of a co-payment does not as significantly impact the GA versus OS preference while the number of appointments and perceived risks associated with the treatment remain significant.

No description available.