SynthesisFrontiers in oral health2026
An updated evidence-informed framework for dental sedation: drugs, routes, patient selection, monitoring, and emergency preparedness.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dental sedation facilitates care for patients with anxiety, behavioral challenges, pronounced gag reflexes, special healthcare needs, or complex treatment requirements. This review aimed to integrate current evidence into a clinically applicable framework for individualized sedation planning in dental practice. Methods: An evidence-informed narrative review was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, covering primarily January 2014 to September 2025. Literature identification and selection were reported with reference to PRISMA 2020 principles. Clinical guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and relevant clinical literature were synthesized narratively and organized descriptively according to study design and their principal role in the narrative synthesis. Results: Evidence supports individualized sedation selection based on patient age, medical and ASA status, airway risk, anxiety and cooperation, procedural requirements, intended sedation depth, clinician competence, and available monitoring and rescue resources. Nitrous oxide-oxygen and midazolam-based techniques are supported for appropriately selected patients requiring minimal-to-moderate sedation. Advanced or deep sedation requires appropriately trained and credentialed personnel, appropriate physiological monitoring, and immediate airway-rescue capability. Dexmedetomidine- and ketamine-based regimens may provide specialized options in selected populations, although protocols and applicability remain heterogeneous. The evidence was integrated into a conceptual framework addressing patient assessment, pharmacological options, monitoring, recovery, and emergency preparedness. Conclusions: No single sedative drug or administration route is universally optimal for all dental patients. The available evidence supports individualized sedation selection based on patient characteristics, procedural requirements, intended sedation depth, clinician competence, and available monitoring and rescue resources. Nitrous oxide-oxygen and midazolam-based techniques remain well-supported options for appropriately selected patients, whereas advanced or deep sedation should be reserved for appropriately equipped settings with trained and credentialed personnel.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.