Miller C S, Leonelli F M, Latham E
Oral Medicine, University of Kentucky College of Dentistry, Lexington 40536-0084, USA.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998 Jan;85(1):33-6. doi: 10.1016/s1079-2104(98)90394-8.
We sought to determine whether electromagnetic interference with cardiac pacemakers occurs during the operation of contemporary electrical dental equipment.
Fourteen electrical dental devices were tested in vitro for their ability to interfere with the function of two Medtronics cardiac pacemakers (one a dual-chamber, bipolar Thera 7942 pacemaker, the other a single-chamber, unipolar Minix 8340 pacemaker). Atrial and ventricular pacemaker output and electrocardiographic activity were monitored by means of telemetry with the use of a Medtronics 9760/90 programmer.
Atrial and ventricular pacing were inhibited by electromagnetic interference produced by the electrosurgical unit up to a distance of 10 cm, by the ultrasonic bath cleaner up to 30 cm, and by the magnetorestrictive ultrasonic scalers up to 37.5 cm. In contrast, operation of the amalgamator, electric pulp tester, composite curing light, dental handpieces, electric toothbrush, microwave oven, dental chair and light, ENAC ultrasonic instrument, radiography unit, and sonic scaler did not alter pacing rate or rhythm.
These results suggest that certain electrosurgical and ultrasonic instruments may produce deleterious effects in medically fragile patients with cardiac pacemakers.
我们试图确定在当代牙科电子设备操作过程中是否会发生对心脏起搏器的电磁干扰。
对14种牙科电子设备进行体外测试,以评估它们干扰两种美敦力心脏起搏器(一种是双腔双极Thera 7942起搏器,另一种是单腔单极Minix 8340起搏器)功能的能力。使用美敦力9760/90编程器通过遥测监测心房和心室起搏器输出以及心电图活动。
电外科设备在距离10厘米范围内产生的电磁干扰会抑制心房和心室起搏,超声波清洗器在30厘米范围内、磁致伸缩超声洁牙机在37.5厘米范围内产生的电磁干扰也会抑制起搏。相比之下,银汞合金调和器、牙髓电活力测试仪、复合树脂固化灯、牙科手机、电动牙刷、微波炉、牙科椅及灯、ENAC超声仪器、X射线摄影装置和声波洁牙机的操作不会改变起搏频率或节律。
这些结果表明,某些电外科和超声仪器可能会对有心脏起搏器的医疗脆弱患者产生有害影响。