Comparison of the effects of target-controlled infusion-remifentanil/midazolam and manual fentanyl/midazolam administration on patient parameters in dental procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Moderate sedation is an integral part of dental care delivery. Target-controlled infusion (TCI) has the potential to improve patient safety and outcome. We compared the effects of using TCI to administer remifentanil/manual bolus midazolam with manual bolus fentanyl/midazolam administration on patient safety parameters, drug administration times, and patient recovery times. Methods: In this retrospective chart review, records of patients who underwent moderate intravenous sedation over 12 months in a private dental clinic were assessed. Patient indicators (pre-, intra-, and post-procedure noninvasive systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respiration, and heart rate) were compared using independent t-test analysis. Patient recovery time, procedure length, and midazolam dosage required were also compared between the two groups. Results: levels and average procedure length between the fentanyl and remifentanil TCI pump groups (P > 0.05). However, a significant difference was observed in the time required for discharge from the chair (P = 0.048), indicating that patients who received remifentanil required less time for discharge from the chair than those who received fentanyl. The dosage of midazolam used in the fentanyl group was 0.487 mg more than that in the remifentanil group; however, the difference was not significant (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The combination of TCI administered remifentanil combined with manual administered midazolam has the potential to shorten the recovery time and reduce respiration rate changes when compared to manual administration of fentanyl/midazolam. This is possibly due to either the lower midazolam dosage required with TCI remifentanil administration or achieving a stable, steady-state low dose remifentanil concentration for the duration of the procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".