RF Safe

Wireless Communication of Intraoral Devices and Its Optimal Frequency Selection.

IEEE transactions on microwave theory and techniques · 2014 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream
UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 3010

The study compared ISM-band frequencies (27 MHz, 433.9 MHz, and 2.48 GHz) for wireless intraoral device communication using path loss, radiation patterns, and BER testing. Experimentally, 27 MHz had the smallest near-field path loss up to 39 cm separation, wh…

Study snapshot

PublicationIEEE transactions on microwave theory and techniques · 2014
Study typeengineering
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

This paper explores communication methods and frequencies for wireless intraoral electronic devices, by using an intraoral tongue drive system (iTDS) as a practical example. Because intraoral devices do not meet the operating conditions of the body channel communication, we chose radio frequency communication. We evaluated and compared three frequencies in industrial, scientific, and medical bands (27 MHz, 433.9 MHz, and 2.48 GHz) in terms of their data link performance based on path loss and radiation patterns over horizontal and vertical planes. To do so, we dynamically minimize the impedance mismatch caused by the varying oral environment by applying the adaptive impedance matching technique to 433.9 MHz and 2.48 GHz bands. Experimental results showed that 27 MHz has the smallest path loss in the near-field up to 39 cm separation between transmitter and receiver antennas. However, 433.9 MHz shows the best performance beyond 39 cm and offers a maximum operating distance of 123 cm with 0 dBm transmitter output power. These distances were obtained by a bit error rate test and verified by a link budget analysis and full functionality test of the iTDS with computer access.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeengineering
Effect directionunclear
PopulationNot supplied
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureRF
Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The study compared ISM-band frequencies (27 MHz, 433.9 MHz, and 2.48 GHz) for wireless intraoral device communication using path loss, radiation patterns, and BER testing. Experimentally, 27 MHz had the smallest near-field path loss up to 39 cm separation, while 433.9 MHz performed best beyond 39 cm and achieved a maximum operating distance of 123 cm at 0 dBm transmitter output power; results were supported by link budget analysis and functional testing.

Outcomes measured

  • Path loss
  • Radiation patterns
  • Bit error rate (BER)
  • Maximum operating distance
  • Link budget / data link performance
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "engineering",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "intraoral wireless device (iTDS)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Path loss",
    "Radiation patterns",
    "Bit error rate (BER)",
    "Maximum operating distance",
    "Link budget / data link performance"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The study compared ISM-band frequencies (27 MHz, 433.9 MHz, and 2.48 GHz) for wireless intraoral device communication using path loss, radiation patterns, and BER testing. Experimentally, 27 MHz had the smallest near-field path loss up to 39 cm separation, while 433.9 MHz performed best beyond 39 cm and achieved a maximum operating distance of 123 cm at 0 dBm transmitter output power; results were supported by link budget analysis and functional testing.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "intraoral device",
    "wireless communication",
    "radio frequency",
    "ISM band",
    "27 MHz",
    "433.9 MHz",
    "2.48 GHz",
    "path loss",
    "radiation pattern",
    "adaptive impedance matching",
    "bit error rate",
    "link budget",
    "tongue drive system"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1109/tmtt.2014.2365804
PubMed: 26236039

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library