Capacity of dental equipment to interfere with cardiac implantable electrical devices

Electromagnetic interference in cardiac electronic implants caused by novel electrical appliances emitting electromagnetic fields in the intermediate frequency range: a systematic review

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the intermediate frequency (IF) range are generated by many novel electrical appliances, including electric vehicles, radiofrequency identification systems, induction hobs, or energy supply systems, such as wireless charging systems. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate whether cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are susceptible to electromagnetic interference (EMI) in the IF range (1 kHz-1 MHz). Additionally, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different types of studies used to investigate EMI. Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, we collected and evaluated studies examining EMI in in vivo studies, in vitro studies (phantom studies, benchmark tests), and simulation studies. Our analysis revealed that cardiac implants are susceptible to malfunction induced by EMF in the IF range. Electromagnetic interference may in particular be provoked by security systems and induction hobs. The results of the studies evaluated in this systematic review further indicate that the likelihood for EMI is dependent on exposure-related parameters (field strength, frequency, and modulation) and on implant- as well as on lead-related parameters (model, type of implant, implant sensitivity setting, lead configuration, and implantation site). The review shows that the factors influencing EMI are not sufficiently characterized and EMF limit values for CIED patients cannot be derived yet. Future studies should therefore, consider exposure-related parameters as well as implant- and lead-related parameters systematically. Additionally, worst-case scenarios should be considered in all study types where possible.

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.

Risk of electromagnetic interference induced by dental equipment on cardiac implantable electrical devices

Patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices should take special precautions when exposed to electromagnetic fields. Proximity to equipment used in clinical dentistry may cause interference. This study evaluated in vitro the risks associated with different types/makes of cardiac devices and types of dental equipment. Six electronic dental tools were tested on three implantable cardioverter defibrillators and three pacemakers made by different manufacturers. Overall, the risk of interference with the pacemakers was 37% lower than with the implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Regarding the types/makes of cardiac devices analysed, that from Boston Scientific had a five-fold greater risk of interference than did that from Biotronik [prevalence ratio (PR) = 5.58]; there was no difference between that from Biotronik and that from Medtronic. Among the dental equipment, the electric pulp tester had the greatest risk of inducing interference and therefore this device was used as the benchmark. The electronic apex locator (PR = 0.29), Periotest M (PR = 0.47), and the ultrasonic dental scaler (PR = 0.59) were less likely to induce interference than the electric pulp tester. The risk was lowest with the electronic apex locator. Pacemakers presented a lower risk of light to moderate interference (PR = 0.63). However, the risk of severe electromagnetic interference was 3.5 times higher with pacemakers than with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (PR = 3.47).

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.