Manoela Teixeira de Sant'Anna Dadalti1, Antônio José Ledo Alves da Cunha2, Marcos César Pimenta de Araújo3, Luis Gustavo Belo de Moraes4, Patrícia de Andrade Risso5. 1. Department of Clinical Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: manudadalti@gmail.com. 2. Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: antonioledo@yahoo.com.br. 3. Department of Clinical Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: araujomcp@gmail.com. 4. Department of Cardiology, School of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: luisgbelo@ig.com.br. 5. Department of Clinical Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: patriciarisso@odonto.ufrj.br.
Abstract
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.
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.