Risk of electromagnetic interference induced by dental equipment on cardiac implantable electrical devices.

Patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices should take special precautions when exposed to electromagnetic fields. Proximity to equipment used in clinical dentistry may cause interference. This study evaluated in vitro the risks associated with different types/makes of cardiac devices and types of dental equipment. Six electronic dental tools were tested on three implantable cardioverter defibrillators and three pacemakers made by different manufacturers. Overall, the risk of interference with the pacemakers was 37% lower than with the implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Regarding the types/makes of cardiac devices analysed, that from Boston Scientific had a five-fold greater risk of interference than did that from Biotronik [prevalence ratio (PR) = 5.58]; there was no difference between that from Biotronik and that from Medtronic. Among the dental equipment, the electric pulp tester had the greatest risk of inducing interference and therefore this device was used as the benchmark. The electronic apex locator (PR = 0.29), Periotest M (PR = 0.47), and the ultrasonic dental scaler (PR = 0.59) were less likely to induce interference than the electric pulp tester. The risk was lowest with the electronic apex locator. Pacemakers presented a lower risk of light to moderate interference (PR = 0.63). However, the risk of severe electromagnetic interference was 3.5 times higher with pacemakers than with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (PR = 3.47).

Capacity of dental equipment to interfere with cardiac implantable electrical devices.

Patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices should take precautions when exposed to electromagnetic fields. Possible interference as a result of proximity to electromagnets or electricity flow from electronic tools employed in clinical odontology remains controversial. The objective of this study was to examine in vitro the capacity of dental equipment to provoke electromagnetic interference in pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Six electronic dental instruments were tested on three implantable cardioverter defibrillators and three pacemakers from different manufacturers. A simulator model, submerged in physiological saline, with elements that reproduced life-size anatomic structures was used. The instruments were analyzed at differing distances and for different time periods of application. The dental instruments studied displayed significant differences in their capacity to trigger electromagnetic interference. Significant differences in the quantity of registered interference were observed with respect to the variables manufacturer, type of cardiac implant, and application distance but not with the variable time of application. The electronic dental equipment tested at a clinical application distance (20 cm) provoked only slight interference in the pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators employed, irrespective of manufacturer.