Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam in Conscious Sedation During Dental Implant Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Guldiken I. N., GÜRLER G., Delilbasi C.

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, vol.36, no.6, pp.159-165, 2021 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 36 Issue: 6
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.11607/jomi.8929
  • Journal Name: International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, DIALNET
  • Page Numbers: pp.159-165
  • Keywords: analgesia, conscious sedation, dental implant, dexmedetomidine, midazolam
  • Istanbul Medipol University Affiliated: Yes


Purpose: Conscious sedation in oral surgical procedures provides comfort both for patients and practitioners. Midazolam is a sedative agent commonly used in this manner. Dexmedetomidine is also a decent sedative agent, with its analgesic and mild respiratory effects, which is usually preferred in intensive care units. Dexmedetomidine has been recently used in dental surgeries. This study aimed to investigate the analgesic and respiratory properties of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in conscious sedation during dental implant procedures and to compare these two drugs in terms of ease of use and comfort of dental implant operation. Materials and Methods: This study was a prospective double-blind randomized controlled study. The patients who needed dental implant placement were divided into two randomized groups for either midazolam or dexmedetomidine. The amount of sedative agent used, duration of the procedure, onset of sedation, use of additional same sedative agent, and occurrence of desaturation were recorded. Hemodynamic and respiratory variables (mean blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate) were recorded every 10 minutes, starting immediately before the loading dose until the end of the procedure. Patients completed a Likert scale for their satisfaction, and patient pain was scored using the numeric rating scale postoperatively. The amount of painkiller usage was recorded and reported. All surgical procedures were performed by the same surgeon, and all recordings were taken by an anesthesiology technician; both were blinded for the randomization. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed, and the P value was set at <.05. Results: This study included patients who were scheduled for two to five dental implant insertions to either arch under conscious sedation. A total of 163 dental implants were inserted into 43 patients. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine had lower pain, higher satisfaction with the procedure, and less desaturation (P =.002). The onset of sedation was more rapid with midazolam (P =.001). The number of implants according to drugs did not differ statistically. On the other hand, the mean operation time was 52.09 ± 20.12 minutes in the dexmedetomidine group and 87.14 ± 26.15 minutes in the midazolam group (P =.001). No significant difference was found for retrograde amnesia and preference of sedative between midazolam and dexmedetomidine. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is a good alternative to midazolam for conscious sedation during dental implant procedures, with its better analgesic property and minimal respiratory side effects