Safety and Satisfaction Analysis of Intravenous and Inhalational Conscious Sedation in a Geriatric Population Undergoing Oral Surgery

<b>Aim</b>: The objective of this research was to compare two methods of conscious sedation (midazolam vs. sevoflurane) used for performing oral surgical procedures in the older adult population by analyzing dental treatment-related anxiety levels, the quality of sedation, and potential hemodynamic changes during the interventions, as well as post-recovery symptoms and patient satisfaction levels. <b>Methods</b>: A total of 104 patients underwent oral surgery with intravenous (age: 84.00 ± 8.410; 17 men and 36 women) and inhalation conscious sedation (age: 82.73 ± 8.809; 18 men and 33 women). Anxiety levels were recorded using the Modified Corah Dental Anxiety Scale (MDAS) and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS). During the intervention, the heart rate, systolic/diastolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation, episodes of hypoxia (<90%SpO2), sedation duration, and Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) values were monitored. Upon completion of their treatment, all patients completed three questionnaires which evaluated their recall of the intervention, postoperative symptoms, and recommendation of the sedation method used. <b>Results</b>: Anxiety levels were slightly higher in the midazolam group (MDAS score: 9.60 ± 5.849; HARS score: 27.19 ± 6.802) compared to the sevoflurane group (MDAS score: 8.37 ± 5.063; HARS score: 24.92 ± 5.199), with no statistical significance (MDAS, <i>p</i> = 0.453/HARS, <i>p</i> = 0.065). No significant differences in the analyzed hemodynamic parameters were observed between the two groups. However, SAS values were significantly higher in the sevoflurane group (<i>p</i> = 0.006), while the sedation duration was longer in the midazolam group (<i>p</i> = 0.000). Postoperative symptoms, particularly gastrointestinal disturbances and dry mouth, were significantly more prevalent in the midazolam group, while there were no differences in neurological symptoms between the two groups. The majority of patients expressed a preference for either of these sedation methods. <b>Conclusions</b>: Sedation with agents such as midazolam and sevoflurane appears to be quite safe, given the absence of relevant hemodynamic changes. Midazolam has been shown to be effective for a longer duration, as well as to have a lower risk of developing greater digestive problems during the postoperative period. On the contrary, sevoflurane produced a greater sensation of dry mouth. Both sedative agents are perceived by the older adult population as satisfactory, recommending their use.