Browsing by Subject "Pediatric dentistry"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Restricted
    Comparison of hemodynamic changes with general or local anesthesia during dental treatment in pediatric patients: a prospective clinical study
    (Wiley, 2023-06-16) Acosta Ibarra, Johanna; Pérez García, Silvia; Ruiz Roca, Juan Antonio; Añez, Cristóbal; Gargallo Albiol, Jordi; Dermatología, Estomatología, Radiología y Medicina Física; Facultades de la UMU::Facultad de Medicina
    Background and aim Severe hemodynamic fluctuations during dental treatment can trigger highly undesirable physical reactions. A study was made to determine whether the administration of propofol and sevoflurane contributes to the stabilization of hemodynamic parameters during dental treatment in pediatric patients versus the use of local anesthesia alone. Materials and methods Forty pediatric patients needing dental treatment were assigned to either general anesthesia with local anesthesia (study group [SG]) or local anesthesia alone (control group [CG]). Two percent sevoflurane in oxygen (100% oxygen, 5 L/min) and continuous propofol infusion (target-controlled infusion [TCI], 2 μg/mL) were used as general anesthesia agents in SG; and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline was used as local anesthesia in both groups. Heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation were measured before starting dental treatment (baseline) and every 10 min during dental treatment. Results Blood pressure (p < .001), heart rate (p = .021) and oxygen saturation (p = .007) decreased substantially after the administration of general anesthesia. The levels of these parameters subsequently remained low and then recovered at the end of the procedure. On the other hand, the oxygen saturation values remained closer to baseline in SG versus CG. In contrast, the hemodynamic parameters experienced lesser fluctuations in CG than in SG. Conclusions General anesthesia affords more favorable cardiovascular parameters during the entire dental treatment in comparison to local anesthesia alone (blood pressure and heart rate decrease significantly and oxygen saturation proves more stable and with values closer to baseline), and allows dental treatment to be performed on healthy, lacking cooperative ability children who otherwise could not be treated with local anesthesia alone. No side effects were observed in either group.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Open Access
    Do preventive programs reduce the need for new sedation for the treatment of oral pathologies in healthy and special health care needs children?
    (MPDI, 2024-09-10) Gómez-Rios, Inmaculada; Serna-Muñoz, Clara; Pérez Silva, Amparo; Martínez Beneyto, Yolanda; Di Carlo, Gabriele; Ortiz Ruiz, Antonio José; Dermatología, Estomatología, Radiología y Medicina Física
    Background: The goal is to analyze the need for reinterventions under deep sedation to treat oral pathologies in a population of children with special health care needs (SHCNs) and healthy children who followed a prevention program and to study the influence of parental motivation and child collaboration on the need for reinterventions under deep sedation. Methods: A retrospective study was carried out in a private clinic in Cartagena (Murcia, Spain), with patients treated under deep sedation from 2006 to 2018, both years included, following the Strobe statement. Results: In this study with 230 children who were treated under deep sedation, 23.92% underwent two or more sedations. The mean time elapsed between the first and the second sedations was 21.64 ± 15.87 months, and the main cause for reinterventions was the occurrence of new pathologies. Significantly more pulp treatments were performed in the first sedation than in the second (p = 0.013) and in the third (p = 0.007). Healthy children required fewer reinterventions under deep sedation than children with special needs (6.42% vs. 39.67%). Similarly, patients who followed the preventive program and required some type of dental treatment were reoperated fewer times than those who did not follow the preventive program (35.8 vs. 50%); than “cooperative” children as opposed to “non-cooperative” (12.12% vs. 60.93%) and than patients with “motivated” parents as opposed to those with “non-motivated” parents (20.83% vs. 46.34%). A total of 50% of the children who participated in the preventive program became “cooperative”, and 100% were able to receive some treatment in the dental chair. Conclusions: Prevention programs, including motivational interviewing, are essential to improve children’s behavior in the dental chair and reduce the need for reinterventions under general anesthesia or deep sedation. Although patients with special needs do require more sedation during their lifetime due to their inability to cooperate, these programs are necessary for the maintenance of oral health status and for the early diagnosis of caries lesions. Pediatric dentists should implement a quarterly preventive program because it improves patient collaboration. It is essential to achieve the motivation of parents in the oral care of their children.