Conde-Mir Isabel, Miranda-Rius Jaume, Trucco Emilce, Lahor-Soler Eduard, Brunet-Llobet Lluís, Domingo Rebeca, Tolosana José M, Mont Lluís
Servei d'Odontologia, Centre d'Atenció Primària Montnegre, Gerència d'Àmbit d'Atenció Primària Barcelona Ciutat, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Departament d'Odontoestomatologia, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Eur J Oral Sci. 2018 Aug;126(4):307-315. doi: 10.1111/eos.12534. Epub 2018 Jul 4.
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.
体外研究表明,在电子牙科设备与起搏器距离较近的特定条件下可能会发生电磁干扰。目前,关于在临床条件下使用电子牙科设备对起搏器患者影响的体内研究较少。本研究旨在评估三种常用电子牙科器械——超声洁牙器、牙髓电活力测试仪和电子根尖定位仪——对不同品牌和配置起搏器患者的体内影响。在定期电生理随访期间,连续纳入了66名不依赖起搏器的患者。在对起搏器进行问询时操作电子牙科工具,并记录心内电图和心电图。在使用牙科设备进行测试期间,未在任何患者的心内电图中检测到干扰。未观察到起搏器起搏和感知功能异常,在牙科设备的变量、起搏器品牌、起搏器配置或应用方式方面也未发现差异。在25名(37.9%)患者中发现了影响体表心电图但不影响心内电图的电磁干扰,尤其是在使用超声洁牙器时;起搏器的固有功能未受影响。在实际临床条件下,所测试的电子牙科器械均未干扰起搏器功能。