BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2016 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2016 |Article ID 5248271 |

Larissa da Silva Moura, Paulo Sucasas Costa, Luciane Rezende Costa, "How Do Observational Scales Correlate the Ratings of Children’s Behavior during Pediatric Procedural Sedation?", BioMed Research International, vol. 2016, Article ID 5248271, 11 pages, 2016.

How Do Observational Scales Correlate the Ratings of Children’s Behavior during Pediatric Procedural Sedation?

Academic Editor: Jareen K. Meinzen-Derr
Received07 Sep 2016
Accepted07 Dec 2016
Published28 Dec 2016


Background. There is little information regarding the ability of observational scales to properly assess children’s behavior during procedural sedation. Aim. To evaluate the characteristics of the Houpt scales, the Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS) and the Venham Behavior Rating Scale when applied to preschool children undergoing conscious dental sedation. Design. This study included 27 children, 4–6 years old with early childhood caries that participated in a clinical trial (NCT02284204) that investigated two sedative regimes using oral midazolam/ketamine. Dental appointments were video-recorded; five calibrated observers assessed 1,209 minutes of video recording to score the children’s behavior, following the instructions of the investigated scales. Data were analyzed by descriptive analysis and Spearman correlation tests (). Results. The Houpt overall behavior and the Venham scale were highly correlated (rho = −0.87; ). OSUBRS scores were better correlated with Houpt overall behavior and Venham ratings, when compared to Houpt scores in the categories for movement and crying. Conclusions. The Houpt overall behavior and the Venham scores are global scales that properly measure children’s behavior during dental sedation. Continuous assessment with OSUBRS through videos has a chance to give more precise data, while the Houpt categories can easily demonstrate children’s behavior during procedures.

1. Introduction

In recent years, moderate (conscious) sedation for pediatric dental treatment has shown success rates varying between 26.7% [1] and 95.0% [2], which are primarily influenced by the characteristics of the child, sedative regimen, type of dental procedure, and methods for assessing the child’s behavior.

One of the variables determining the success of conscious dental sedation is the child behavior during the procedure. According to recent clinical trials [120] (Table 1), the Houpt scale [21] and the Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS) [22] have been frequently used for this purpose. Another scale, the Venham Behavior Rating Scale [23] was initially proposed for evaluating general pediatric dental treatment but has also been used during dental sedation procedures [15].

CitationParticipantsSedative regimeDental procedureBehavioral outcomesResults/conclusions

Malhotra et al., 2016 [3]36 children, 3–9 years oldMK: saline IN and midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) PO with ketamine (5 mg/kg) mixed in mango juice
DX: dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) IN and mango juice
C: saline IN and mango juice
UnclearSedation level and behavior score (modified observer assessment of alertness and sedation, MOAAS)
Ease of treatment completion (Houpt scale)
MK: 75.0% patients successfully sedated; DX, 53.9%; C, none
Houpt scores were higher in MK than DX

Flores-Castillo et al., 2015 [4]13 children,
17–46 months old
A: midazolam (0.4 mg/kg) SC
B: midazolam-ketamine (0.4 and 0.1 mg/kg) SC
Procedures with local anesthesiaBehavior (modified Houpt scale)Group A: 53.85% (no cry and no movement)
Group B: 69.23% (cry and movement that not interfere with treatment)

Salem et al., 2015 [5]88 children,
4–7 years old
Midazolam (0.2 or 0.5 mg/kg) PO
A: PO formulation
B: IV formulation
Pulp therapy in primary molarsBehavior (North Carolina and Houpt scale)Acceptable behavior in 90.9% (A) and 79.5% (B)

Mahmoud and Haggag, 2014 [6]30 children,
4–8 years old
A: dexmedetomidine (2.5 mcg/kg) PO
B: midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) PO
Procedures with local anesthesiaBehavior (modified Houpt scale)Median Houpt scores were 4 (A) and 3 (B)

Ghajari et al., 2014 [7]16 children,
2–6 years old
A: midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) + hydroxyzine (1 mg/kg) PO
B: chloral hydrate (50 mg/kg) + hydroxyzine (1 mg/kg) PO
Not citedBehavior (Houpt scale)Groups differed in sedation success: A: 64.3%; B: 33.3%

Natarajan Surendar et al., 2014 [8]84 children,
4–14 years old
D1: dexmedetomidine (1 mcg/kg) IN
D2: dexmedetomidine (1.5 mcg/kg) IN
M1: midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) IN
K1: ketamine (5 mg/kg) IN
Teeth extractionsBehavior (author’s scale)
Pain (the FLACC Pain Assessment Tool)
Success: D2 (85.7%), D1 (81%), K1 (66.7%), M1 (61.9%)

Sheta et al., 2014 [9]72 children,
3–6 years old
A: midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) IN
B: dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg) IN
Dental rehabilitationSedation status (no specific scale)Children sedation:
A: 44.4%
B: 77.8%

Azevedo et al., 2013 [10]10 children,
2–4 years old
Midazolam in different doses (0.2 to 0.4 mg/kg) PO
placebo PO
Dental rehabilitationBehavior (Frankl scale), Adequacy of sedation (Ramsay scale)All midazolam doses allowed positive behavior and longer appointments
Midazolam: 58.1%
Placebo: 31.0%

Chopra et al., 2013 [11]30 children,
2–8 years old
A: midazolam (0.25 mg/kg) MB spray
B: midazolam (0.25 mg/kg) IN
Procedure with local anesthesiaBehavior (Houpt scale)
Acceptability of administration route
The acceptance in A was better than in B. There was no difference in behavior scores

Mittal et al., 2013 [12]40 children,
2–6 years old
Premedication: midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) PO
A: propofol (1–1.5 mg/kg) IV
B: ketofol (1–1.5 mg/kg midazolam + 0.25 mg/kg ketamine) IV
Maintenance: propofol (25–75 mg/kg/min) IV (bolus if needed)
Pulpectomy in primary molarsBehavior: procedural success, operator satisfaction, quality of sedation
Also duration of treatment, recovery time, total dose of propofol
Other analysis showed no behavior differences between groups

Moreira et al., 2013 [13]41 children,
<3 years old
A: midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) PO + ketamine (3 mg/kg) PO
B: midazolam (1.0 mg/kg) PO
C: placebo PO
Procedures under local anesthesia and protective stabilizationBehavior (OSUBRS)Group A was associated with more cooperative behavior and a longer session

Toomarian et al., 2013 [1]30 children,
2–6 years old
Crossover design
hydroxyzine (1 mg/kg) PO associated with:
A: meperidine (2 mg/kg) PO
B: meperidine (1 mg/kg) SM
C: midazolam 0.5 mg/kg PO
Pulp therapy in primary teethBehavior (Houpt and modified Houpt)Success rates:
A: 46.7%; B: 50%; C: 26.7%
Patients ≥ 4 years old had six times greater chance of success

Tyagi et al., 2013 [14]40 children,
2–6 years old
Parallel design
A: midazolam (0.5 mg) PO
B: diazepam (0.5 mg) PO
C: midazolam (0.06 mg/kg) IV
D: placebo PO
Restorations, pulp therapy, extractions, local anesthesia when necessaryBehavioral changes (Houpt scale)Groups A and B: Similar sedative effects. Group C showed better scores in behavior. Group D: more negative behavior Midazolam was better than diazepam

Collado et al., 2013 [15]98 patients,
7–15 years old
A: patients with intellectual disability (ID, 33)
B: Dentally anxious patients (DA, 44)
Midazolam (0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg) IV with or without inhalation sedation (50% N2O/O2)
Not citedSuccess rate, level of cooperation (Venham), level of sedation (Ramsay scale)In patients with DA and ID, more sessions were conducted with a totally relaxed patient (Venham score of 0)
Success rate:
A: 89.1%
B: 90.6%

Bhatnagar et al., 2012 [16]60 children,
3–9 years old
Parallel design
A: midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) PO
B: tramadol (2 mg/kg) PO
C: triclofos (70 mg/kg) PO
D: zolpidem (0.4 mg/kg) PO
Not citedLevel of sedation (no scale) and ease of handlingGroups A and B achieved better levels of sedation. D showed worse cooperation. Midazolam produced the best results, similar to tramadol

Guelmann et al., 2012 [17]17 children,
5–8 years old
A: discontinuation of nitrous oxide after local anesthesia (100% O2)
B: Constant nitrous oxide (50% de N2O/50% O2)
Restorative procedures, lower archBehavior (OSUBRS)There were no differences between groups

Somri et al., 2012 [18]90 children,
3–10 years old
Midazolam PO administered in one of 3 doses:
A: 0.5 mg/kg
B: 0.75 mg/kg
C: 1 mg/kg
General proceduresBehavior (Houpt scale)
Sedation level (Wisconsin sedation scale)
Completion of procedures
Sedation scores, cooperation, completion of the procedure were higher in B and C than in A

Bahetwar et al., 2011 [19]45 children,
2–6 years old
A: midazolam (0.3 mg/kg) IN
B: ketamine (6 mg/kg) IN
C: midazolam + ketamine (0.2 mg/kg; 4 mg/kg) IN
Procedures under local anesthesia (infiltrative or block)Success of treatmentQuicker sedation onset in B
Success rates:
A: 69.0%; B: 89.0%; C: 84.0%

Pandey et al., 2011 [2]34 children,
2–6 years old
Ketamine (6 mg/kg) IN administered with
atomizer (A) and
dropper (B)
Procedures under local anesthesia (infiltrative or block)Success of sedation, behavior during administration and treatment, onset, sedation depth, recovery timeSedation was successful in 84% (B) to 95% (A)
Group A had quicker onset and recovery time after sedation

Shabbir et al., 2011 [20]12 children,
3–9 years old
A: triclofos (70 mg/kg) PO
B: midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) PO
Procedures under local anesthesiaBehavior (Houpt scale)Midazolam was more efficacious than triclofos

IN = intranasal route; IV = intravenous route; MB = buccal route; SM = submucous route; PO = oral route; SC = subcutaneous route; OSUBRS = Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale; N2O = nitrous oxide; O2 = oxygen.

The Houpt scale (Table 2) was first proposed in 1985 in a clinical study without a thorough investigation of its properties [21]. Researchers had observed a degree of concordance between crying and movement and measured 90% reliability in a test-retest analysis. The Houpt scale is advantageous because it categorizes the assessment of the severity of behavioral expressions (sleep, movement, and crying), thereby increasing the possibility to detect specific changes in a child’s behavior [24]. However, this scale has the potential disadvantage of requiring sufficient examiner skill to detect and appropriately assign scores for different categories while witnessing a care session, which could be minimized by video-recording the dental consultation to allow subsequent evaluation of the child’s behavior [24]. Still, the Houpt scales have good interrater agreement when observers have more or less experience [25].

Behavior Scores

Houpt scale

Sleep(1) Fully awake, alert
(2) Drowsy, disoriented
(3) Asleep

Movement(1) Violent, interrupting treatment
(2) Continuous, making treatment difficult
(3) Controllable, not interfering with treatment
(4) No movement

Crying(1) Hysterical, demanding attention
(2) Continuous, persistent, making treatment difficult
(3) Intermittent, mild, not interfering with treatment
(4) No crying

Overall behavior(1) Aborted, no treatment rendered
(2) Poor, treatment interrupted, only partial treatment completed
(3) Regular, treatment interrupted but eventually completed
(4) Good, difficult, but all treatment performed
(5) Very good, some limited crying or movement, (e.g., during anesthesia or mouth prop insertion)
(6) Excellent, no crying or movement

Ohio State University Behavioral Rating Scale (OSUBRS)

(1) Quiet
(2) Crying, no movement
(3) With movement without crying
(4) Struggling

The OSUBRS [22] captures mutually exclusive behaviors (Table 2); the presentation of its results is given by the percentage of a given score observed during a session of dental treatment requiring sedation [24], increasing the chance of a more accurate evaluation. However, it requires specific software to achieve this goal.

The Venham Behavior Rating Scale was developed to evaluate children’s behavior during dental treatment to overcome the difficulties related to reliability, validity, and the measurement properties of existing scales at that time [23]. The Venham scale presents significant advantages as raters can be readily trained to use the scale, and it is easily integrated into clinical activities and research designs. The original scale has 6 scores, while the Brazilian version has 5 resulting from the merger of ratings 2 and 3 [26] (Table 3). This is the only one of the three scales investigated here that was systematically cross-culture adapted to Brazilian-Portuguese populations.

ScoreBehaviorDescriptionBrazilian version (free back translation to English)

0Total cooperationBest possible working conditions, no crying or physical protest.Score 0, no protest: the child has no physical protest, such as crying or body movements that disturb the dentist, enabling good working conditions.

1Mild protestSoft verbal protest or (quiet) crying as a signal of discomfort, but not obstructing progress. Appropriate behavior for procedure, that is, slight start at injection, “ow” during drilling if hurting, and so on.Score 1, mild protest: the child protests quietly (grumbling) or contained crying as a sign of discomfort. However, it does not prevent the continuation of treatment.

2Protest more prominentBoth crying and hand signals. May move hands around making it hard to administer treatment. Protest is more distracting and troublesome. However, child still complies with request to cooperate.Score 2, intense protest: the child expresses discomfort verbally with strong crying and body movements (hands, arms, heads, etc.) that interfere with the performance of the procedure. However, he or she still meets the requests to cooperate, even if with some resistance.
3Protest presents real problem to dentistComplies with demands reluctantly, requiring extra effort by dentist. Body movement.

4Protest disrupts procedureRequires that all of the dentist’s attention be directed toward the child’s behavior. Compliance is eventually achieved after considerable effort by the dentist, but without much actual physical restraint (may require holding child’s hands, or the like, to start). More prominent body movement.Score 3, more intense protest: the child makes larger body movements, including trunk and legs. The procedure can be stopped, representing a real problem for the dentist and demanding physical and mental effort. Physical restraint is required for part of the body (hands, head). Yet the child cooperates reluctantly and partially with the dentist’s commands.

5General protestNo compliance or cooperation. Physical restraint is required.Score 4, general protest: no cooperation from the child. The situation results in physical and mental stress for both the child and the dentist. Physical restraint (hold, arms, legs, head, etc.) is required, the child may try to escape from the chair and cover the mouth, and sometimes the conclusion of the procedure becomes impossible in one session.

Of the 20 clinical trials cited in Table 1 eleven used the Houpt scale, three used the OSUBRS, and one the Venham scale. So, how can one compare successful outcomes achieved through different measures? From a clinical perspective, it is important to know if different sedative protocols work well in practice and to have a tool that easily and securely assesses children’s behavior on a day-by-day basis. In the context of investigations, the operationalization of children’s behavior assessment during sedation has been an issue because it is desirable to have the training and the blinding of observers to accomplish accurate evaluations.

Because of the variety of behavior assessment scales for pediatric dental sedation it is difficult to compare studies in a systematic review and then guide the clinician through the evidence revealed about this topic [27]. One study investigated the correlation of four scales in assessing children’s behavior during the dental treatment (the Houpt and Frankl scales, the Global Rating Scale, and the Visual Analogue Scale). The Houpt scale demonstrated agreement among dentists and was recommended to assess behavior related to specific procedures [25]. There is a lack of studies comparing observational scales that assess children’s behavior during dental treatment, especially in sedated children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation of the scores of frequently used scales, Houpt, OSUBRS, and Venham, that assess the behavior of preschool children during sedation for dental procedures.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Ethical Aspects

This study is a secondary analysis of data obtained from a randomized clinical trial in which 27 children aged 4–6 years (18 boys) with early childhood caries were rendered dental treatment under moderate sedation with oral midazolam and ketamine accompanied with a dose of either sevoflurane or oxygen (approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Universidade Federal de Goias, protocol 307/2011; NCT02284204). The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Brazilian ethical regulation. The child’s legal guardian was informed about the research and authorized the participation through a consent form. All treatment was video-recorded for later analysis. The primary outcomes of the aforementioned trial have not been published so far.

2.2. Moderate Dental Sedation Procedure

Each child received a combination of oral medications: midazolam 0.5 mg/kg (maximum dose 20 mg; Dormire®, Cristália Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil); ketamine at a dose of 3.0 mg/kg (maximum 50 mg, Ketamin®, Cristália Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil). After 15 minutes, the child received either oxygen only or a mixture of oxygen and sevoflurane (Sevocris®, Cristália Laboratory, São Paulo, Brazil) through a vaporizer connected to the nasal anesthesia mask at an initial concentration of 0.1%, which was increased 0.1% every 30 seconds until a final expirate concentration between 0.3% and 0.4%.

After 15 minutes of nasal mask use, dental procedures commenced according to the following standardized sequence: mouth prop insertion, topical and local anesthesia administration, rubber dam isolation, and use of a handpiece. All children received restoration of a lower primary molar under local anesthesia and rubber dam.

The dental sedation procedure was continuously complemented by nonpharmacological behavior management techniques, such as distraction and “tell-show-do,” as we aimed to achieve moderate sedation.

All procedures in the dental chair were fully video-recorded by digital camcorder, Handycam® HDR-PJ10 (Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) for later analysis of the children’s behavior. The camera was camouflaged to prevent interference with the children’s behavior.

2.3. Children’s Behavior Assessment

Houpt and OSUBRS scales were selected for analysis because they are widely used in pediatric dentistry; the Venham scale was chosen because it is the only one that went through a systematic process of cultural adaptation to the Brazilian context.

To increase the accuracy of the evaluation, five observers were trained in the use of the scales by watching videos of similar pediatric dental treatment sessions, which were not included in the trial. For calibration, the examiners watched the videos of three patients from this study during their dental exam (performed without sedation). The same videos were examined by a pediatric dentist with expertise in outpatient sedation, considered the gold standard to evaluate agreement between observers. Intra- and interexaminer agreement was analyzed by a weighted kappa test, obtaining satisfactory reliability values (kappa > 0.6). None of the evaluators knew which drug had been used because (1) the sedatives used in the dental sedation appointments were concealed in the aforementioned RCT (only the anesthesiologist and pediatrician knew the sedatives for emergency purposes and they did not participate in the videos assessment) and (2) the video files were named according to the code children received in the RCT, without identification of the sedatives.

Five trained observers, calibrated and masked to the intervention group, independently watched the videos on a 15-inch computer screen and determined scores of children’s behavior by following the procedures of the studies that had originally developed the scales. Houpt scores were marked in a specific spreadsheet every 15 minutes and during specific procedures (mouth prop placement, anesthesia injection, rubber dam placement, start of the high-speed handpiece use, and end of the session). For the purpose of this study, sleep scores on the Houpt scale (originally anchored 1 to 3) were combined into score 1 (child awake or drowsy, disoriented) and score 2 (child asleep) because the videos did not allow reliable distinguishing between an awake and a disoriented child. To allow comparisons with the other scales investigated herein, the percentage of each score reported for the Houpt categories of sleep, movement, and crying was calculated for each case.

OSUBRS scores are supposed to be assessed continuously, using specific software (Automated Counting System, JAGTECH, Rockville, MD). Because the software is no longer sold, we adapted a strategy in Microsoft Word for Windows 2010: While watching the videos, the observer continuously pressed a key when certain behaviors were observed, key 1 for OSUBRS score 1, and so on. After the observation of each film, the rater calculated the absolute and relative frequencies of occurrence for each of the four behavior codes.

Finally, at the end of each video observation, observers recorded the lone score for the Houpt overall behavior rating and the Brazilian-adapted Venham scale.

2.4. Statistical Analyzes

Sample size was estimated to be 23 and calculated in the website StatsToDo, establishing alpha at 0.05 and power at 0.80 and expecting a correlation coefficient (rho) of 0.5.

Data presented a nonnormal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test; ). The Spearman correlation test was used to verify the possible linear association among the continuous scores (percentages) of the Houpt categories and OSUBRS as well as the ordinal scores for Houpt overall behavior and Venham. The strength of the correlation coefficients was interpreted as suggested [28]: 0.00–0.30, negligible correlation; 0.20–0.50, low; 0.50–0.70, moderate; 0.70–0.90, high; 0.90–1.00, very high.

Data were analyzed with SPSS version 19 (IBM Corp., Chicago, IL) and GraphPad Prism version 6 (and GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). Significance was set at .

3. Results

The average length of a dental sedation session was 43 minutes (minimum 33, maximum 66), totaling 1,209 minutes of observation of children’s behavior in the digital archives of videos.

The scores observed most often for overall behavior were “very good” (Houpt) and “mild protest” (Venham) (Figure 1). Regarding detailed scores, children were mostly quiet (OSUBRS), awake/disoriented (Houpt sleep) with no movement, or crying (Houpt) (Table 4). During specific procedures, the most frequent Houpt scores were (see Figure 2) local anesthesia injection, awake, controllable movement and no crying; mouth prop insertion, awake, no movement and no crying; rubber dam placement, awake, no controllable movement and intermittent crying; handpiece use, awake, no movement and no crying; end of the session, awake, no movement and no crying.

ScalesScoresMedian (%)98% confidence interval
Lower limitUpper limit


Houpt sleep110078.0100

Houpt movement 1000

Houpt crying1000

Correlations among each investigated score varied from negligible to very high; some were statistically significant and others were not (Table 5). The Houpt overall behavior score and the Venham score had a high negative correlation (). These scores had high correlation coefficients if compared with OSUBRS scores 1 and 4 (Table 5). The Houpt overall behavior score showed moderate correlation with Houpt movement category scores of 2 and 4 and crying scores of 1, 2, and 4 (Table 5). The Venham scores were highly correlated with Houpt movement score 4 and crying scores 2 and 4 and moderately correlated with Houpt movement score 2 and crying score 1 (Table 5).


(1) OSUBRS 1rho1
(2) OSUBRS 2rho−.641
(3) OSUBRS 3rho−.33.071
(4) OSUBRS 4rho−.92.47.391
(5) Houpt sleep 1rho−.
(6) Houpt sleep 2rho.31−.35−.27−.37−.991
(7) Houpt movement 1rho−.21.11−.24.31.20−.261
(8) Houpt movement 2rho−−.13.101
(9) Houpt movement 3rho−.−.30−.01.041
(10) Houpt movement 4rho.80−.64−.30−.75−.20.19−.12−.68−.701
(11) Houpt crying 1rho−.−.−.361
(12) Houpt crying 2rho−.−.−.69.511
(13) Houpt crying 3rho−.−.29−.06.04.64−.45.04−.081
(14) Houpt crying 4rho.76−.60−.28−.77−.26.27−.24−.76−.45.86−.53−.81−.451
(15) Houpt overall behaviorrho.79−.55−.44−.79−.31.31.48−.60−.39.69−.57−.67−.15.621
(16) Venhamrho−.−.−.−.77−.87

4. Discussion

Scales that assess children’s behavior are an important tool in making decisions about behavioral management techniques in pediatric dentistry. One of the major findings of this study is that the global scales (Houpt and Venham) were highly correlated in their assessment of young children’s behavior during dental sedation. These results indicate that the researcher or the clinician may choose either of the two scales for assessing a child’s overall behavior. However, the restricted scales investigated (scores for Houpt categories and OSUBRS) showed a variety of relationships that should be discussed. To what extent will the use of a restricted scale add important information about the behavior of children during dental treatment?

Interestingly, Houpt overall behavior scores correlated highly with OSUBRS scores 1 (positive rho) and 4 (negative rho) but presented moderate correlations with the Houpt categories, showing positive correlations with the percentage of Houpt score 4 for movement and crying and negative correlations with Houpt scores 1 and 2 for crying and 2 for movement. While the Houpt overall behavior is one score that represents the child’s complete reaction to the dental sedation appointment, OSUBRS measures behavior continuously and the Houpt scale categories assess specific moments in time. So, this intriguing strength of association probably means that OSUBRS was more precise in measuring behavior in this case. Also, Venham scores presented high correlations with OSUBRS scores 1 and 4, Houpt movement score 4, and Houpt crying scores 2 and 4. In all these cases, the direction of the linear relationships made sense.

The percentage of OSUBRS score 1 (“quiet”) and score 4 (“struggling”) had high positive or negative correlations with the percentages of Houpt movement and crying for score 4, but not with score 1 for Houpt movement and crying. Most of our sample represented favorable behavior scores for OSUBRS (score 1) and for Houpt crying (score 4) and movement (score 4). That must have driven the statistical analysis to highlight the most relevant correlation coefficients for these scores. So, our results pertaining to OSUBRS score 3, Houpt movement for scores 1 and 2, and Houpt crying, score 1 should be interpreted with caution and will not be discussed further.

OSUBRS score 2 (“with crying, no movement”) presented moderate negative correlation with the Houpt behaviors for “no movement” and “no crying” (score 4) and moderate positive correlation with score 2 for Houpt crying (“persistent crying”). One would not expect a negative correlation between OSUBRS score 2 and the Houpt movement score 4 because they represent behaviors without movement. Again, the explanation for this may be the most accurate continuous measurement using the OSUBRS scale discussed earlier in this section. Besides, OSUBRS score 2 presented a meaningful and moderate correlation with the score for Houpt overall behavior and the Venham scale.

The adaptation we did to assess the Houpt sleep category did not work well because it was not possible to assess “disorientation” separately from “fully awake.” So, most children were identified as being awake/drowsy and just a few were assessed as sleeping. Further studies should consider using a video camera for close-ups of children’s faces to allow better assessment in this category. Or, perhaps, the identification of children’s sleep status would be better accomplished in situ rather than through videos.

According to the methodology of this study, only the Houpt scale allowed us to investigate the children’s behavior during determined interventions during the dental sedation, and the mouth prop insertion was the most tolerable procedure among those investigated. So, if researchers want to investigate children’s behavior related to a specific procedure, we agree with the literature that the Houpt scale is a good choice [25].

In addition, one of the advantages of the Houpt scale is the possibility of identifying the magnitude of movement or crying during dental sedation, which is not originally provided in OSUBRS [24]. In fact, this feature would be relevant for classifying sedation as successful or unsuccessful. Still, for the moderate sedation videos analyzed in this study, the most negative scores for motion and crying were uncommon; there were in-between behaviors that were scored as 2 or 3 on the Houpt scale. However, in general, these in-between scores correlated weakly with the global scales investigated, except for score 2 in the Houpt crying category and for the Venham scale score. Therefore, the role of assessing behavioral intensity during a sedative protocol that provides good success rates is questionable.

In this respect, one cannot forget that ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic. This sedative has an analgesic effect that dissociates the cerebral cortex, allowing a trance-like state with eyes open, but the child sees nothing and does not respond to painful stimuli [29]. All children included in this study received an association of oral midazolam and ketamine. Possibly, that is why we had a few observations of OSUBRS 3 and Houpt movement scores 1 and 2.

That being said, the most notable strengths of this study are the training of the observers, the use of standardized dental procedures, and the restricted age range of the children, which allowed us to control the scenario for video comparisons. The age range of children was restricted to 4–6 years to avoid interference from different stages of cognitive development on the sedation effectiveness as well as to represent the occurrence of caries in early childhood. Unfortunately, we were not able to use software to determine the OSUBRS scores according to the original idea, but the solution we found seemed reasonable. Anyway, as few studies have used the OSUBRS and still not following the recommendation of original use, the strategy used here may be helpful.

Also, the absence of a few scores in some categories made it difficult to analyze particular cases. Moreover, as our data followed a nonnormal distribution, we could not test the agreement of the scales with Bland-Altman curves, as previously suggested [25]. Another point is that the Houpt scale could be applied in dental clinics during sedation procedures [21], so the associations between Houpt scores reported in the dental setting and through video files should be evaluated in the near future.

Ultimately, this study highlights the relevance of the properly assessment and register of children’s behavior during dental sedation as is commonly done with vital signs. As the diversity of children’s behavior rating scales recommended to pediatric procedural sedation can hinder the professional’s choice on which one to use, this study in the dental context serves as a model for other health professionals who provide sedation for children in an outpatient basis.

5. Conclusions

To sum up, this study shows that Houpt, OSUBRS, and Venham scales are appropriate to monitor children’s behavior during pediatric dental sedation. The Houpt overall behavior scale and the Venham scale are reasonable choices for the clinical routine of busy professionals. In the research context, continuous assessment with OSUBRS through videos has a chance to give more precise data, while the Houpt categories can easily demonstrate children’s behavior during procedures.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


The authors appreciate the financial support from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), and the State of Goias Research Foundation (FAPEG).


  1. L. Toomarian, K. Salem, and G. Ansari, “Assessing the sedative effect of oral vs submucosal meperidine in pediatric dental patients,” Dental Research Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 173–179, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. R. K. Pandey, S. K. Bahetwar, A. K. Saksena, and G. Chandra, “A comparative evaluation of drops versus atomized administration of intranasal ketamine for the procedural sedation of young uncooperative pediatric dental patients: a prospective crossover trial,” Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 79–84, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. P. Malhotra, S. Thakur, P. Singhal et al., “Comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine and midazolam-ketamine combination as sedative agents in pediatric dentistry: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial,” Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 186–192, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. D. Flores-Castillo, R. Martínez-Rider, S. Ruiz-Rodríguez, A. Garrocho-Rangel, J. Lara-Guevara, and A. Pozos-Guillén, “Subcutaneous midazolam with and without ketamine for sedation in children undergoing dental treatment: a pilot study,” The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 382–386, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. K. Salem, S. Kamranzadeh, M. Kousha, S. Shaeghi, and F. AbdollahGorgi, “Two oral midazolam preparations in pediatric dental patients: a prospective randomised clinical trial,” International Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 2015, Article ID 349795, 7 pages, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. G. M. Mahmoud and I. A. E. F. Haggag, “Comparison of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for conscious sedation in pediatric dental patients: a clinical randomized trial,” Journal of American Science, vol. 10, pp. 300–308, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  7. M. F. Ghajari, M. V. Golpayegani, M. Bargrizan, G. Ansari, and S. Shayeghi, “Sedative effect of oral midazolam/hydroxyzine versus chloral hydrate/hydroxyzine on 2–6 year-old uncooperative dental patients: a randomized clinical trial,” Journal of Dentistry (Tehran), vol. 11, pp. 93–99, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  8. M. Natarajan Surendar, R. Kumar Pandey, A. Kumar Saksena, R. Kumar, and G. Chandra, “A comparative evaluation of intrnasal dexmedetomidine, midazolam and ketamine for their sedative and analgesic properties: a triple blind randomized study,” Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 255–261, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. S. A. Sheta, M. A. Al-Sarheed, and A. A. Abdelhalim, “Intranasal dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for premedication in children undergoing complete dental rehabilitation: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial,” Paediatric Anaesthesia, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 181–189, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. I. D. Azevedo, M. A. F. Ferreira, A. P. S. Da Costa, V. L. Bosco, and R. D. Moritz, “Efficacy and safety of midazolam for sedation in pediatric dentistry: a controlled clinical trial,” Journal of Dentistry for Children, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 133–138, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  11. R. Chopra, M. Mittal, K. Bansal, and P. Chaudhuri, “Buccal midazolam spray as an alternative to intranasal route for conscious sedation in pediatric dentistry,” Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 171–173, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. N. Mittal, A. Goyal, K. Gauba, A. Kapur, and K. Jain, “A double blind randomized trial of ketofol versus propofol for endodontic treatment of anxious pediatric patients,” Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 415–420, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. T. A. Moreira, P. S. Costa, L. R. Costa et al., “Combined oral midazolam-ketamine better than midazolam alone for sedation of young children: a randomized controlled trial,” International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 207–215, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. P. Tyagi, S. Tyagi, and A. Jain, “Sedative effects of oral midazolam, intravenous midazolam and oral diazepam in the dental treatment of children,” Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 301–306, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. V. Collado, D. Faulks, E. Nicolas, and M. Hennequin, “Conscious sedation procedures using intravenous midazolam for dental care in patients with different cognitive profiles: a prospective study of effectiveness and safety,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 8, Article ID e71240, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. S. Bhatnagar, U. M. Das, and G. Bhatnagar, “Comparison of oral midazolam with oral tramadol, triclofos and zolpidem in the sedation of pediatric dental patients: an in vivo study,” Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 109–114, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. M. Guelmann, R. Brackett, N. Beavers, and R. E. Primosch, “Effect of continuous versus interrupted administration of nitrous oxide-oxygen inhalation on behavior of anxious pediatric dental patients: a pilot study,” Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 77–82, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. M. Somri, C. A. Parisinos, J. Kharouba et al., “Optimising the dose of oral midazolam sedation for dental procedures in children: a prospective, randomised, and controlled study,” International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 271–279, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. S. K. Bahetwar, R. K. Pandey, A. K. Saksena, and C. Girish, “A comparative evaluation of intranasal midazolam, ketamine and their combination for sedation of young uncooperative pediatric dental patients: a triple blind randomized crossover trial,” Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 415–420, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. A. Shabbir, S. Bhat, H. Sundeep, and S. M. Salman, “Comparison of oral Midazolam and triclofos in conscious sedation of uncooperative children,” Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 189–196, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. M. I. Houpt, N. J. Weiss, S. R. Koenigsberg, and P. J. Desjardins, “Comparison of chloral hydrate with and without promethazine in the sedation of young children,” Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 41–46, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  22. M. E. Lochary, S. Wilson, A. L. Griffen, and D. L. Coury, “Temperament as a predictor of behavior for conscious sedation in dentistry,” Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 348–352, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  23. L. L. Venham, E. Gaulin-Kremer, E. Muster, D. Bengston-Audia, and J. Cohan, “Interval rating scales for children's dental anxiety and uncooperative behavior,” Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 195–202, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
  24. S. Wilson, “A review of important elements in sedation study methodology,” Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 406–412, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  25. M. T. Hosey and A. S. Blinkhorn, “An evaluation of four methods of assessing the behavior of anxious child dental patients,” International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 87–95, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  26. D. D. Torriani, A. M. Teixeira, R. Pinheiro, M. L. Goettems, and M. L. M. Bonow, “Adaptação transcultural de instrumentos para mensurar ansiedade e comportamento em clínica odontológica infantil,” Arquivos em Odontologia, vol. 44, pp. 17–23, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  27. L. Lourenço-Matharu, P. F. Ashley, and S. Furness, “Sedation of children undergoing dental treatment,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 3, Article ID CD003877, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. M. M. Mukaka, “Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research,” Malawi Medical Journal, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 69–71, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  29. J. D. Tobias, “Sedation in the pediatric intensive care unit: challenges, outcomes, and future strategies in the United States,” in Pediatric Sedation Outside of the Operating Room, K. Mason, Ed., pp. 275–328, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 2001. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2016 Larissa da Silva Moura et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.