Crossover Studies of Pediatric Dental Sedation are Inappropriate

Abstract

Crossover studies continue to be published in spite of warnings about their inherent risks in relation to behavioral outcomes. This study took the opportunity of access to secondary data analysis in order to demonstrate the impact of a crossover design on the outcomes of randomized clinical trials aimed at the behavior of children during dental treatment. We evaluated the effect of the sequence of sedative administration, the sedative and the participant’s age on the behavior of children undergoing two sequential dental visits. Eighteen uncooperative healthy young children were equally randomly assigned to: (G1) 1.0 mg/kg oral midazolam (first session) and oral placebo (second session); (G2) oral placebo (first) and 1.0 mg/kg oral midazolam (second). One trained observer assessed children’s behavior. Data were analyzed by three-way mixed ANOVA. Both midazolam [mean(SD); 71.7%(16.5)] and placebo [48.6%(33.1)] produced more struggling behavior when they were administered in the first session compared to the second one (p=0.001). For the placebo, children aged 2-3 years exhibited more struggling behavior [G1 54.9%(36.2); G2 80.5%(8.3)] than those aged 4-5 years (p=0.04). Also, the reduction of percentage of struggling behavior was higher in G1 for older children (76.2%) and in G2 for younger children (32.9%). There were significant interactions between drug and sequence of administration, and between drug and age. The results of our study confirm the conventional wisdom that crossover study design is inappropriate to evaluate children’s behavior/anxiety related-dental treatment under sedation and the results of crossover studies of dental sedation should be treated with extreme caution.

Sedation versus protective stabilization for dental treatment of children with caries and challenging behavior at the dentist (CHOOSE): a study protocol for a non-randomized clinical trial

“…Moreover, we propose to measure children's anxiety and behavior both at baseline and at follow-up, providing further strength through longitudinal data [ 4 ]. Compared to other studies, we will avoid carry-over bias since a crossover design will not be employed [ 4 , 35 ].…”

Best clinical practice guidance for conscious sedation of children undergoing dental treatment: an EAPD policy document

“…Quasi-randomised trials were excluded. We also excluded cross-over trials from this review, as they are not an appropriate study design when the intervention can have a long-lasting effect (Higgins 2011 ) or for studies investigating the efficacy of sedative agents (Gomes et al 2019 ).…”

Efficacy of audiovisual distraction using eyeglasses during dental care: a randomized clinical trial

“…Ideally, a parallel group design should be adopted to avoid a carry-over effect between groups when a split-mouth design is used. 9 In addition, it is important to compare the technique with standard non-pharmacological behavioral techniques and use adequate measures to assess the outcomes.…”