Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Randomised Comparative Study on Propofol and Diazepam as a Sedating Agent in Day Care Surgery

  • Comparative Study
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The study was conducted to assess the usefulness by qualitative comparison between the two intravenous sedative drugs, Diazepam and Propofol and to provide sedation in apprehensive and uncooperative patients undergoing day care oral surgical procedures.

Methods

The present study was conducted on 20 adult patients, 10 in each group (Propofol and Diazepam) irrespective of age and sex. Intravenous sedation of Propofol compared with Diazepam in terms of onset of action, recovery, and anterograde amnesia, patient co-operation, surgeon’s convenience and side effects and other parameters.

Results

Propofol was found to be the superior sedating agent compared to Diazepam, having rapid onset and predictability of action, profoundness of amnesia and a faster recovery period, offering advantages of early patient discharge and better patient compliance.

Conclusion

Propofol was found to be an ideal sedating agent in day care oral surgical procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vanderbijl P, Roelofse JA (1987) Intravenous midazolam in oral surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 16:325–332

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sarasin DS, Ghoneim NM (1996) Effect of sedation with midazolam or propofol on cognition and psychomotor functions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54:1187–1193

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wylie Report (1981) Report of the working party on training in dental anesthesia. Br Dent J 151:385–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rodrigo MRC, Rosenquist JB (1989) Conscious sedation with Propofol. Br Dent J 166:75–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. White Paul F (1988) Propofol pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics. Semin Anesth 7:4–20

    Google Scholar 

  6. Guy J (1991) The neuropharmacology of propofol. J Drug Dev 4:103–105

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cillo Joseph E, Buffalo NY (1999) Propofol anaesthesia for outpatient oral maxillofacial surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 87:530–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Adam HK, Briggs LP (1983) Pharmacokinetic evaluation of ICI 35868 in man. Br J Anaesth 55:97–103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Doze A, Westphal LM et al (1986) Comparison of propofol with methohexital for outpatient anesthesia. Anaesth Analg 65:1189–1195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Logan MR, Duggan JE et al (1987) Single shot IV anesthesia for outpatient dental surgery. Br J Anaesth 59:179–183

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Richter James J et al (1981) Current theories about the mechanism of benzodiazepines and neuroleptic drugs. Anaesthesiology 54:66–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Malamed Stanley F (1985) Sedation: a guide to patient management, 1st edn. The C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wood N, Sheikh A et al (1986) Midazolam and Diazepam for minor oral surgery. Br Dent J 160:9–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Grattidge P (1992) Patient controlled sedation using Propofol in day surgery. Anaesthesia 47:683–685

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vickers MD (1965) The measurement of recovery from anesthesia. Br J Anesth 37:296–302

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramsay MA, Savege TM et al (1974) Controlled sedation with alphaxalone alphadolone. Br Medical J 2:656–659

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Edmondson H (1972) Biochemical evidence of anxiety in dental patients. Br Med J 4:712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bennett CR (1984) Conscious sedation: an alternative to general anaesthesia. J Dent Res 63:832–833

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Keilty SR, Blackwood S (1969) Sedation for conservative dentistry. Br Dent J of Clin Pract 23:365

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dixon HR, Tilton BE et al (1970) A comparison of the sedative and cardiopulmonary effects of Diazepam and Pentazocine premedication. Anaesth Analg 49:546

    Google Scholar 

  21. Valtonen M, Saloen M et al (1989) Propofol infusion for sedation in outpatient oral surgery. A comparison with Diazepam. Anesthesia 44:730–734

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nusstein J, Berlin J et al (2004) Comparison of injection pain, heart rate increase, post injection pain of articaine and lidocaine in a primary intraligamentary injection administered with a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery system. J Anesth 51:126–133

    Google Scholar 

  23. Struys M, Versichelen L et al (1997) Comparison of computer controlled administration of Propofol with two manually controlled infusion techniques. Anaesthesia 52:41–50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Grounds RM, Lelor JM et al (1987) Propofol infusion for sedation in the intensive care unit. Preliminary report. Br Med J 294:397–400

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Eriksson M, Englesson S et al (1997) Effects of lignocaine and pH on Propofol induced pain. Br J Anaesth 78:502–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mitchell Paul F (1980) Diazepam associated thrombophlebitis. J Am Dent Assoc 101:492–495

    Google Scholar 

  27. Barclay JK, Hunter KM et al (1985) Midazolam and Diazepam compared as sedatives for out patient surgery under local analgesia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 59:349–355

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilbur K, Zed PJ (2001) Is propofol an optimal agent for procedural sedation and rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department? CJEM 3(4):302–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dental Science and Hospital, Rau, Indore, India

    Amit S. Nirwan

  2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Modern Dental College and Research Centre, Indore, India

    Neha Jain, Micheal Pragasm, Deepashri Kamblimath, Anurag Bhargava & Saba Tiwari

Authors
  1. Amit S. Nirwan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neha Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Micheal Pragasm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deepashri Kamblimath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anurag Bhargava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Saba Tiwari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neha Jain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nirwan, A.S., Jain, N., Pragasm, M. et al. Randomised Comparative Study on Propofol and Diazepam as a Sedating Agent in Day Care Surgery. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 13, 583–591 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-013-0537-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-013-0537-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation