Interference of electrical dental equipment with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Electromagnetic interference effect of dental equipment on cardiac implantable electrical devices: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The electromagnet interference (EMI) effect resulting from using dental equipment near cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is controversial based on in vitro and in vivo studies. We aimed to summarize the available evidence to investigate the safety of using dental equipment on patients with CIEDs.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE Ovid, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies published between January 2000 and May 2020. The search strategy centered on terms related to dental devices and CIEDs. Two independent reviewers determined the final inclusion of the studies in the systematic review. The EMI effect was summarized based on different dental instruments detected in in vitro or in vivo studies.

RESULTS

The primary search identified 84 articles, and 18 studies were finally included in this systematic review after exclusions. Most in vitro studies (n = 12) reported background noise or severe EMI affecting CIED function at a close distance from the lead tip or at a high sensitivity setting of CIEDs. In in vivo studies (n = 6), EMI that altered CIED function was not detected at clinical distance and sensitivity settings. The summary, based on electronic apex locators, ultrasonic devices, and electric pulp testers, demonstrated the compatibility of these common dental devices with CIEDs.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review indicates that most dental instruments can be used safely in routine dental practice. The EMI effect of dental equipment depends on the exposure distance and lead-related parameters of the CIEDs.

Influence and safety of electronic apex locators in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a systematic review

The widespread use of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices has increased concerns regarding using electronic apex locators in patients with these devices. This systematic review investigated the effects and safety of using electronic apex locators in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.

METHODS

An electronic search in the Cochrane Library, PubMed (MEDLINE), ScienceDirect, and Scientific Electronic Library Online (Scielo) databases for relevant articles published between December 2000 and December 2018 was performed. The search strategy centered on terms related to electronic apex locators use during root canal treatment in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.

RESULTS

Seven studies (five in vitro and two in vivo) fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. It was found that electronic apex locators can be used safely in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, when general precautions are followed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the present review suggests that electronic apex locators can be used safely in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, consultation with patients' cardiologists remains advisable.

In-vivo compatibility between pacemakers and dental equipment

In-vitro studies suggest that electromagnetic interference can occur under specific conditions involving proximity between electronic dental equipment and pacemakers. At present, in-vivo investigations to verify the effect of using electronic dental equipment in clinical conditions on patients with pacemakers are scarce. This study aimed to evaluate, in vivo, the effect of three commonly used electronic dental instruments - ultrasonic dental scaler, electric pulp tester, and electronic apex locator - on patients with different pacemaker brands and configurations. Sixty-six consecutive non-pacemaker-dependent patients were enrolled during regular electrophysiology follow-up visits. Electronic dental tools were operated while the pacemaker was interrogated, and the intracardiac electrogram and electrocardiogram were recorded. No interferences were detected in the intracardiac electrogram of any patient during the tests with dental equipment. No abnormalities in pacemaker pacing and sensing function were observed, and no differences were found with respect to the variables, pacemaker brands, pacemaker configuration, or mode of application of the dental equipment. Electromagnetic interferences affecting the surface electrocardiogram, but not the intracardiac electrogram, were found in 25 (37.9%) patients, especially while using the ultrasonic dental scaler; the intrinsic function of the pacemakers was not affected. Under real clinical conditions, none of the electronic dental instruments tested interfered with pacemaker function.

Electromagnetic interference of dental equipment with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

OBJECTIVE

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are subject to electromagnetic interference (EMI). The aim of this study was to assess both the EMI of dental equipments with ICDs and related factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

High- and low-speed handpieces, an electric toothbrush, an implant motor and two types of ultrasonic devices were tested next to an ICD with different sensitivity settings. The ICD was immersed in a saline solution with electrical resistance of 400-800 ohms to simulate the resistance of the human body. The dental equipments were tested in both horizontal (0°) and vertical (90°) positions in relation to the components of the ICD. The tests were performed with a container containing saline solution, which was placed on a dental chair in order to assess the cumulative effect of electromagnetic fields.

RESULTS

The dental chair, high- and low-speed handpieces, electric toothbrush, implant motor and ultrasonic devices caused no EMI with the ICD, irrespective of the program set-up or positioning. No cumulative effect of electromagnetic fields was verified.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that the devices tested are safe for use in patients with an ICD.

Safety concerns of Piezoelectric Units in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

PURPOSE

Evidence-based research appears to conflict on the potential risk of electromagnetic interference (EMI) between piezoelectric units (Pzs) and implantable cardioverters and defibrillators (ICDs). The purpose of this study was to observe whether the EMI produced by Pzs is hazardous for ICDs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study of 6 Pzs was conducted in vitro for EMI using an ICD system. To simulate the human body's electrical resistance, electrographic recordings were made of the ICD and lead that were immersed in a bath of saline solution. The variables investigated were the presence of EMI, the distance between the ICD and the Pz, and signal intensity, damage, and type of damage to the ICD and lead. Each series of tests was repeated 3 times, beginning with a 15-second baseline recording (control), until all recording conditions had been covered. Each Pz was recorded under the following conditions: less than 2 cm from the tip of the ICD lead; less than 2 cm from the ICD; less than 2 cm from the lead body and coils; and 15 cm from the lead or the ICD (R4).

RESULTS

In the positive control (direct contact between the lead or the ICD with the Pz switched on), the ICD detected electrical activity as false heart activity. However, after covering all test conditions, no EMI was produced by the Pzs.

CONCLUSION

No EMI or permanent changes in the functioning of the ICD were detected in vitro.

Management of Patients With Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Dental, Oral, and Maxillofacial Surgery

The prevalence of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices as life-prolonging and life-saving devices has evolved from a treatment of last resort to a first-line therapy for an increasing number of patients. As these devices become more and more popular in the general population, dental providers utilizing instruments and medications should be aware of dental equipment and medications that may affect these devices and understand the management of patients with these devices. This review article will discuss the various types and indications for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, common drugs and instruments affecting these devices, and management of patients with these devices implanted for cardiac dysrhythmias.

Electromagnetic interference of endodontic equipments with cardiovascular implantable electronic device

OBJECTIVES

Assess the electromagnetic interference (EMI) of endodontic equipment with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and related factors.

METHODS

The laser device, electronic apex locators (EAL), optical microscope, endodontic rotary motors, gutta-percha heat carrier (GH), gutta-percha gun and ultrasonic device were tested next to CIEDs (Medtronic and Biotronik) with varied sensitivity settings and distances. CIEDs were immersed in a saline solution to simulate the electrical resistence of the human body. The endodontic equipment was tested in both horizontal and vertical positions in relation to the components of the CIED. The tests were performed on a dental chair in order to assess the cumulative effect of electromagnetic fields.

RESULTS

It was found no EMI with the Biotronik pacemaker. EALs caused EMI with Medtronic PM at a 2 cm distance, with the NSK(®) EAL also affecting the Medtronic defibrillator. GH caused EMI at 2 cm and 5 cm from the Medtronic defibrillator. EMI occurred when devices were horizontally positioned to the CIED. In the majority of the cases, EMI occurred when the pacemaker was set to maximum sensitivity. There was cumulative effect of electromagnetic fields between GH and dental chair.

CONCLUSIONS

EALs and GH caused EMI which ranged according to type and sensitivity setting of the CIEDs and the distance. However, no endodontic equipment caused permanent damage to the CIED. The use of GH caused a cumulative effect of electromagnetic fields. It suggests that during the treatment of patients with CIEDs, only the necessary equipments should be kept turned on.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Patients with CIEDs may be subject to EMI from electronic equipment used in dental offices, as they remain turned on throughout the treatment. This is the first article assessing the cumulative effect of electromagnetic fields.

Influence of electronic apex locators and a gutta-percha heating device on implanted cardiac devices: an in vivo study

AIM

To evaluate the potential for electromagnetic interference (EMI) of electronic apex locators (EALs) and a gutta-percha heating device (HD) in patients with implantable cardiac pacemakers (ICPs) or cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).

METHODOLOGY

Two types of EALs (Romiapex A-15 and Novapex) and a HD (Touch'n Heat) were tested in patients followed in an outpatient clinic for cardiac arrhythmias. The heart rhythm was monitored on a computer screen during all experimental phases. After baseline data collection, the patient held each appliance (turned on) for 30 s, simulating their clinical use. If background noise was detected on the cardiac monitor, the sensitivity of the ICP/ICD was lowered by the cardiologist to evaluate the intensity of the detected EMI.

RESULTS

Twelve patients were evaluated (5 female and 7 male), and in nine instances, background noise in their cardiac devices related to the use of the endodontic devices was detected (6 patients). After lowering the sensitivity of the cardiac implants, three patients had more severe EMI in six instances, including pauses in ICP function. The presence of a symptomatic or asymptomatic pause was related to the patient's underlying heart rhythm. The HD device produced background noise more often compared to EALs. These were associated with more severe types of EMI.

CONCLUSION

The EALs and gutta-percha HD were capable of causing background noise detection or pauses in cardiac implants in vivo. The use of electronic dental devices nearby patients with cardiac implants should be carefully considered in clinical practice.

Capacity of dental equipment to interfere with cardiac implantable electrical devices

Patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices should take precautions when exposed to electromagnetic fields. Possible interference as a result of proximity to electromagnets or electricity flow from electronic tools employed in clinical odontology remains controversial. The objective of this study was to examine in vitro the capacity of dental equipment to provoke electromagnetic interference in pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Six electronic dental instruments were tested on three implantable cardioverter defibrillators and three pacemakers from different manufacturers. A simulator model, submerged in physiological saline, with elements that reproduced life-size anatomic structures was used. The instruments were analyzed at differing distances and for different time periods of application. The dental instruments studied displayed significant differences in their capacity to trigger electromagnetic interference. Significant differences in the quantity of registered interference were observed with respect to the variables manufacturer, type of cardiac implant, and application distance but not with the variable time of application. The electronic dental equipment tested at a clinical application distance (20 cm) provoked only slight interference in the pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators employed, irrespective of manufacturer.

Evaluating the effects of different dental devices on implantable cardioverter defibrillators

INTRODUCTION

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is an electronic device that emits electrical signals to the heart via lead wires and electrodes. It is used for cardiac rhythm monitoring and treatment. Because electronic dental devices have been shown to produce electromagnetic fields, we hypothesize that they may interfere with ICD function.

METHODS

Nine dental devices (heat carrier, electronic apex locator, electric pulp tester, unipolar electrosurgery unit, electric motor, curing light, and 3 gutta-percha guns) were tested in this study for their ability to interfere with the function of 4 ICDs (2 single-chambered and 2 dual-chambered ICDs). ICD activity was monitored for 30 seconds using an ICD programmer (Medtronic 2090; Minneapolis, MN) and evaluated through an electrogram test strip printout.

RESULTS

Electromagnetic interference was detected with the electric motor, curing light, electric pulp tester, and electrosurgery unit although no electromagnetic disturbances were detected with these devices. No electromagnetic interferences were observed for the gutta-percha guns, heat carrier, and apex locator. However, the electrosurgery unit affected the dual-chambered ICD (Consulta CRT-D, Medtronic) and delivered therapies for fibrillation when no ventricular fibrillation was present.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the electrosurgery unit produces electromagnetic disturbances with unwanted therapy delivery shock and potentially clinically significant outcomes.

Interference between dental electrical devices and pacemakers or defibrillators: results from a prospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

The authors aimed to determine whether electrical dental devices would interfere with the function of cardiac pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in humans.

METHODS

The authors exposed asymptomatic nonpacemaker-dependent patients to commonly used electrical dental equipment (for example, battery-operated curing lights, ultrasonic baths, ultrasonic scalers, electric pulp testers, and electric toothbrushes) in an outpatient cardiology clinic. The authors operated dental devices at various distances and programmed cardiac devices to sense and pace. The authors obtained cardiac tracings using a cardiac programming unit and a cardiac provider who noted any interference interpreted the results in real time.

RESULTS

The authors enrolled 32 consecutive patients and tested 12 pacemakers and 20 ICDs. They did not observe any significant clinical interference in sensing and pacing functions in any patient; however, they noted minor interference without clinical impact in the telemetry from the cardiac programming unit during use of the ultrasonic scaler and bath.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this prospective study suggest that electrical devices commonly used in dental practices do not interfere with the sensing and pacing of contemporary cardiac patients' pacemakers or ICDs. However, they do interfere with the telemetry from the cardiac programming unit, without any clinical impact on patient safety. These findings should help in the development of clinical guidelines regarding dental management of patients with pacemakers or ICDs.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Electrical dental devices (for example, ultrasonic baths, ultrasonic scalers) induced minor interference with programmers that interrogate cardiac devices implanted in patients; however, overall, dental devices do not appear to interfere with pacemakers' and defibrillators' pacing and sensing function.

Effects of piezoelectric units on pacemaker function: an in vitro study

INTRODUCTION

The use of piezoelectric units on patients with pacemakers is generally discouraged, although there is no empirical evidence of the effects of current piezoelectric units on pacemaker activity in vitro.

METHODS

Four piezoelectric units (Piezosurgery3, Piezotome, Piezotome2, and Variosurg) and 2 magnetostriction units (Piezotome and Piezotome2) were tested for electromagnetic interference (EMI) with the SENSIA SESR01 pacemaker from Medtronic. The pacemaker, with a single electrode, was immersed in a saline-solution bath and adjusted between 400 and 800 ohms to simulate the electrical resistance of the human body and to register and to produce electrographic recordings. The pacemaker was tested with each ultrasonic device to analyze the presence of EMI at different distances, with the ultrasound switched on, switched off, and during operation. If any of the devices produced interference, the characteristics of the interference were categorized.

RESULTS

In the positive control (direct contact between either the electrode or the generator and the ultrasound device when this was switched on), the pacemaker detected electrical activity as false heart activity. When all the scenarios and distances had been covered, no EMI was produced by the ultrasound units.

CONCLUSIONS

No EMI was detected during the testing of the piezoelectric or magnetostriction units in this in vitro model of pacemaker use.

Do ultrasonic dental scalers interfere with implantable cardioverter defibrillators? An in vivo investigation

OBJECTIVES

To test the in vivo effects of an ultrasonic dental scaler on various implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) models.

METHODS

12 consecutive patients with ICDs had continuous both electrocardiogram monitoring and device interrogation to detect interferences during the use of an ultrasonic dental scaler.

RESULTS

No interferences were detected by any ICD. Evaluation of the electrocardiograms for each patient failed to show any abnormalities in pacing during testing.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that the routinary clinic use of piezoelectric dental scalers do not interfere with the functioning of any of the tested ICDs.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Ultrasonic dental scalers have been suspected of electromagnetic interference (EMI) with the normal functioning of ICDs and the use of this type of equipment for patients with these devices has been controversial. This is the first in vivo study to investigate EMI of ICD activity during the operation with ultrasonic dental scaler.

The effects of six electronic apex locators on pacemaker function: an in vitro study

AIM

To assess the effects of six electronic apex locators (EALs) on pacemaker function in vitro.

METHODOLOGY

Six EALs (Mini Apex Locator®, Dentaport ZX®, Novapex®, Raypex5®, Root ZX mini®, and Justy II®) were tested for electromagnetic interference (EMI) with one pacemaker (Saint Jude Medical). The pacemaker, with a single electrode, was immersed in a saline solution bath adjusted to 400-800 hms to simulate the electrical resistance of the human body and to register the activity by the system. The pacemaker was tested with each of the EALs to analyse the presence of EMI with the EAL switched on, the EAL switched off and during EAL operation. Each series of tests began with a 15-second baseline recording (R0) and continued until all the recording conditions had been covered. The conditions were as follows: R1: recording with the lead of the EAL <2 cm from the tip of the electrode; R2: recording with the lead of the EAL <2 cm from the generator; R3: recording with the lead of the EAL <2 cm from the sensing arc; and R4: recording with the lead of the EAL 15 cm from the sensing arc. If any of the EALs produced interference, its characteristics were categorized.

RESULTS

When the lead of the EAL was <2 cm from the tip of the electrode, the majority of the EALs tested produced only background noise. Only one (the Mini Apex Locator) resulted in EMI that was detected as false heart activity. When the EAL was <2 cm from the generator, just one EAL detected background noise (the Mini Apex Locator). When the EAL was <2 cm from the sensing arc or 15 cm from the sensing arc, the recordings were not affected by any of the EALs. There were no significant differences amongst the EALs analysed with respect to the production of EMI.

CONCLUSIONS

EMI occurred when the EALs were placed close to the tip of the electrode and occasionally when close to the pacemaker; however, no EMI was detected when the EALs were placed near to or 15 cm from the sensing arc in this laboratory experimental model.