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.
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.