Some researchers claim that human tissue provides shielding and other protection from electromagnetic interference that cannot be replicated in a laboratory setting. However, there is conflicting evidence, and most of the positive results come from in-vitro studies. Various types of tested electronic dental devices have shown some potential for causing electromagnetic interference in CIEDs (Table 1). 2 The fact that older pacemaker models lacked these protective measures may have led to many early reports of the high risks of interference with these devices. 3, 17Įarly pacemaker models also were not well protected or shielded from electromagnetic interference, but more modern CIEDs have been designed with potential electromagnetic interference in mind, 2, 5, 18 using sealed casing, filters, rejection circuits, and bipolar modes to limit the risks of such interference. 2, 3, 7, 14-17 Pacemakers have been in use since the 1960s, 14 and early versions could only provide a static pulse more modern versions can provide ‘on demand’ pacing, which can inhibit or trigger cardiac pulse as needed. 2, 3, 7, 13-17 CIEDs consist generally of two main components: a sealed capsule containing the power source, usually implanted inferior to the left clavicle (the subclavian pocket), subcutaneously or subpectorally, with a wire lead that follows the subclavian vein into the heart. 1-6, 13ĬIEDs include pacemakers, which regulate cardiac pacing with low-energy electrical pulses, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, which analyze cardiac rhythm and deliver an impulse when an anomaly is detected. 11, 12 As a result, more patients with CIEDs are receiving treatment in dental settings, so clinicians should remain aware of the risk of potential interactions between common electronic dental equipment and implanted cardiac devices. In the United States and globally, the number of individuals with CIEDs has increased steadily in recent decades, particularly among adults over 70 years of age. 2, 4, 5 Additionally, most newer models of CIEDs are considered to have more adequate shielding from electromagnetic interference than older devices. 2, 4, 5, 10 However, other investigators assert that laboratory tests do not adequately replicate in-vivo conditions, including the proximity of electronic devices used in dental procedures or the shielding of surrounding tissues in the human body. Previous in-vitro tests indicated that ultrasonic electronic dental devices caused interference in pacing and other functions. 9 Electromagnetic interference may cause an interruption in or a change of pacing, or send a positive signal that a shock is needed. In dentistry, there have been conflicting reports regarding whether electronic apex locators, curing lights or ultrasonic devices (e.g., scalers) might interfere with automatic electronic functions of CIEDs. There is a known history of common electronic devices, even cellphones and tablets, 7, 8 interfering with CIEDs. 1-6 This means patients, dental professionals and staff are more likely to have CIEDs, which may also increase the possibility of electromagnetic interference from electronic dental equipment. They are becoming more common as the initial population into which they were introduced ages with an increased life expectancy, and as implantations have increased. Electronic dental instruments, like ultrasonic scalers or apex locators, could potentially interfere with some implantable cardiac devices, such as pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.Ĭardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) use electrical impulses to maintain proper heart rhythm.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |