Elsevier

Journal of Dentistry

Volume 10, Issue 4, December 1982, Pages 326-332
Journal of Dentistry

The pacemaker patient in the dental surgery

https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(82)90027-6Get rights and content

Abstract

Most electrical equipment used in dentistry has been shown to interfere with cardiac pacemaker function. Various dental instruments were tested in a crude experimental simulation of the body's resistance and it was found (out of five instruments tested) that the dental diathermy was the only one to affect pacemaker function.

References (5)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (17)

  • Electromagnetic interference of endodontic equipments with cardiovascular implantable electronic device

    2016, Journal of Dentistry
    Citation Excerpt :

    As far as we are concerned, there is no study assessing optical microscopes. The Nacplus® ultrasonic device tested is from the piezoelectric type, and it caused no EMI with any of the CIEDs tested, corroborating with other works with the same type of ultrasonic device [6–8,25]. However, the same result was not verified when a magnetostriction type ultrasonic device was evaluated [5,7].

  • Interference of electronic apex locators with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

    2014, Journal of Endodontics
    Citation Excerpt :

    They concluded that normal clinical use of dental electrical equipment does not have any significant effect on the ICDs tested. Two studies reported that electric pulp testers (EPTs) did not affect pacemaker function (9, 10). In contrast, Woolley et al (4) showed that electrical pulp testers were able to cause interference on pacemakers implanted in dogs.

  • Effects of piezoelectric units on pacemaker function: An in vitro study

    2013, Journal of Endodontics
    Citation Excerpt :

    When the piezoelectric or magnetostriction units covered all the scenarios and distances, none of them produced any EMI. The results of this study agree with the results obtained in vivo by Simon et al (17) and the in vitro results of Luker (18), both of which reported no interference from ultrasound. Nevertheless, the results of the present study contrast with the in vitro results of Miller et al (13) and Roeding et al (15) and the in vivo results of Griffiths (16).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text