Dadalti Manoela Teixeira de Sant'Anna, da Cunha Antônio José Ledo Alves, de Araújo Marcos César Pimenta, de Moraes Luis Gustavo Belo, Risso Patrícia de Andrade
Department of Clinical Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
J Dent. 2016 Mar;46:68-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.12.008. Epub 2016 Jan 4.
Assess the electromagnetic interference (EMI) of endodontic equipment with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and related factors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
评估牙髓治疗设备对心血管植入式电子设备（CIEDs）的电磁干扰（EMI）及相关因素。
在具有不同灵敏度设置和距离的CIEDs（美敦力和百多力）旁边，对激光设备、电子根尖定位仪（EAL）、光学显微镜、牙髓治疗旋转马达、热牙胶载体（GH）、热牙胶枪和超声设备进行测试。将CIEDs浸入盐溶液中以模拟人体的电阻。牙髓治疗设备相对于CIEDs的组件在水平和垂直位置进行测试。测试在牙科椅上进行，以评估电磁场的累积效应。
发现百多力起搏器未出现电磁干扰。电子根尖定位仪在距离美敦力起搏器2 cm处会引起电磁干扰，NSK（®）电子根尖定位仪也会影响美敦力除颤器。热牙胶载体在距离美敦力除颤器2 cm和5 cm处会引起电磁干扰。当设备水平放置于CIEDs时会出现电磁干扰。在大多数情况下，当起搏器设置为最大灵敏度时会出现电磁干扰。热牙胶载体和牙科椅之间存在电磁场的累积效应。
电子根尖定位仪和热牙胶载体引起的电磁干扰根据CIEDs的类型、灵敏度设置和距离而有所不同。然而，没有牙髓治疗设备对CIEDs造成永久性损坏。热牙胶载体的使用会产生电磁场的累积效应。这表明在治疗CIEDs患者时，应仅开启必要的设备。
CIEDs患者可能会受到牙科诊所使用的电子设备产生的电磁干扰，因为这些设备在整个治疗过程中一直开启。这是第一篇评估电磁场累积效应的文章。
