ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE OF ENDODONTIC EQUIPMENT WITH GASTRIC PACEMAKER
UDC: [616.314.18-72:537.868]:616.33-76
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46763/ETIMA2531221tsКлючевые слова:
Endodontic equipment, gastric pacemaker, electromagnetic interferenceАннотация
Electromagnetic interference (EMI) from endodontic equipment could potentially affect a gastric pacemaker. This article is an overview of the interaction risks, potential consequences, and precautions of the electromagnetic interference of those devices. It is all about interaction that certain electronic dental devices may interfere with the pacemaker’s function, but the level of risk depends on the type of equipment and how close it's used to the pacemaker. The gastric pacemaker operates using small electrical impulses to stimulate stomach muscles. If an endodontic device induces unintended electrical currents in the body, these could be picked up by the pacemaker’s leads, potentially disrupting its normal function. Electromagnetic interference between a gastric pacemaker (also called a gastric electrical stimulator, GES) and endodontic equipment is a potential concern, especially in dental procedures involving electronic endodontic devices. On the other hand, endodontic devices are used in root canal therapy include apex locators, electric motors for rotary files, electrosurgery units, and ultrasonic devices and they generate electrical or electromagnetic fields. In summury, the patients with a gastric pacemaker can be managed safely in the dental setting with input from the gastroenterology team and the manufacturing team. De- and re-activation is relatively simple and ensures that the risk to both device and patient is reduced as far as is reasonably practicable. Also, there is a need to keep electrical devices (especially ultrasonic and electrosurgical tools) at least 15–30 cm (6–12 inches) away from the implanted pacemaker site of use modern apex locators and rotary motors with minimal electromagnetic emission, to minimize electromagnetic interference between those two devices.
Скачивания
Библиографические ссылки
[1] Gomez, G., Duran-Sindreu, F., Jara Clemente, F., Garofalo, R. R., Garcia, M., Bueno, R., & Roig, M.
(2013). The effects of six electronic apex locators on pacemaker function: an in vitro study. International
endodontic journal, 46(5), 399–405.
[2] Venturi, M., & Breschi, L. (2007). A comparison between two electronic apex locators: an ex vivo
investigation. International endodontic journal, 40(5), 362–373.
[3] Dadalti, M. T., da Cunha, A. J., de Araújo, M. C., de Moraes, L. G., & Risso, P.deA. (2016).
Electromagnetic interference of endodontic equipments with cardiovascular implantable electronic
device. Journal of dentistry, 46, 68–72.
[4] Zhang, J., & Chen, J. D. (2006). Systematic review: applications and future of gastric electrical
stimulation. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 24(7), 991–1002.
[5] Saleem, S., Aziz, M., Khan, A. A., Williams, M. J., Mathur, P., Tansel, A., Barber, A., & Abell, T. L.
(2024). Gastric Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Gastroparesis or Gastroparesis-Like
Symptoms: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neuromodulation : journal of the International
Neuromodulation Society, 27(2), 221–228.
[6] Elayi, C. S., Lusher, S., Meeks Nyquist, J. L., Darrat, Y., Morales, G. X., & Miller, C. S. (2015).
Interference between dental electrical devices and pacemakers or defibrillators: results from a prospective
clinical study. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), 146(2), 121–128.
[7] Miller, C. S., Leonelli, F. M., & Latham, E. (1998). Selective interference with pacemaker activity by
electrical dental devices. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and
endodontics, 85(1), 33–36.
[8] Trenter, S. C., & Walmsley, A. D. (2003). Ultrasonic dental scaler: associated hazards. Journal of clinical
periodontology, 30(2), 95–101.
[9] Erdogan O. (2002). Electromagnetic interference on pacemakers. Indian pacing and electrophysiology
journal, 2(3), 74–78.
[10] Lahor-Soler, E., Miranda-Rius, J., Brunet-Llobet, L., & Sabaté de la Cruz, X. (2015). Capacity of dental
equipment to interfere with cardiac implantable electrical devices. European journal of oral
sciences, 123(3), 194–201.
[11] Driessen, S., Napp, A., Schmiedchen, K., Kraus, T., & Stunder, D. (2019). Electromagnetic interference
in cardiac electronic implants caused by novel electrical appliances emitting electromagnetic fields in the
intermediate frequency range: a systematic review. Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and
cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac
cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 21(2), 219–229.
[12] International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) (2010). Guidelines for
limiting exposure to time-varying electric and magnetic fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz). Health physics, 99(6),
818–836.
[13] McRobbie D. (2011). Concerning guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic,
and electromagnetic fields (1 Hz-100 khz). Health physics, 100(4), 442.
[14] Vecchia P. (2007). Exposure of humans to electromagnetic fields. Standards and regulations. Annali
dell'Istituto superiore di sanita, 43(3), 260–267.
[15] Fatahzadeh, M., & Glick, M. (2006). Stroke: epidemiology, classification, risk factors, complications,
diagnosis, prevention, and medical and dental management. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology,
oral radiology, and endodontics, 102(2), 180–191.
[16] Roy, C. R., & Martin, L. J. (2007). A comparison of important international and national standards for
limiting exposure to EMF including the scientific rationale. Health physics, 92(6), 635–641.
