Assessment of the accuracy of portable monitors for halitosis evaluation in subjects without malodor complaint. Are they reliable for clinical practice?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Falcão,Denise Pinheiro
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Miranda,Priscila Carvalho, Almeida,Tayana Filgueira Galdino, Scalco,Monique Gomes da Silva, Fregni,Felipe, Amorim,Rivadávio Fernandes Batista de
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Journal of applied oral science (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-77572017000500559
Resumo: Abstract Halitosis is defined as a foul odor emanated from the oral cavity, with great impact in quality of life and social restraints. Recently, the use of Breath Alert™ in research increased significantly. Halimeter™, another portable device, is often used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, not many studies have verified the accuracy and compared the results of both devices simultaneously. Objective: To verify the accuracy of Breath Alert™ and Halimeter™ in patients without chief complaint of halitosis, using the organoleptic test (OT) as "gold standard." The second aim was to verify whether their concomitant use could enhance the diagnostic accuracy of halitosis. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional analytical study was performed. The quality of expired air of 34 subjects without chief complaint of halitosis was assessed. Two experienced examiners carried out the OT. Afterward, a third blinded examiner performed Halimeter™ (HT) and Breath Alert™ (BA) tests. Results: The OT identified halitosis in 21 subjects (62%). The area under the ROC curve (95% confidence interval) was 0.67 (0.48-0.85) and 0.54 (0.34-0.75) for HT and BA, respectively. The accuracy for HT and BA was 59% and 47%, respectively. The combined usage of HT and BA provided 11 positive results, being 9 subjects (43%) out of the total of 21 positive cases. Conclusions: Halimeter™ and Breath Alert™ were not able to diagnose halitosis in non-complainer subjects at the same level as the organoleptic examination, since their accuracy were low. Our results suggest that such portable devices are not reliable tools to assess halitosis and may neglect or misdiagnose a considerable number of patients in clinical practice.
id USP-17_50edeabec0031d9aa414b2feb77ad8a9
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1678-77572017000500559
network_acronym_str USP-17
network_name_str Journal of applied oral science (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Assessment of the accuracy of portable monitors for halitosis evaluation in subjects without malodor complaint. Are they reliable for clinical practice?HalitosisDiagnosisAbstract Halitosis is defined as a foul odor emanated from the oral cavity, with great impact in quality of life and social restraints. Recently, the use of Breath Alert™ in research increased significantly. Halimeter™, another portable device, is often used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, not many studies have verified the accuracy and compared the results of both devices simultaneously. Objective: To verify the accuracy of Breath Alert™ and Halimeter™ in patients without chief complaint of halitosis, using the organoleptic test (OT) as "gold standard." The second aim was to verify whether their concomitant use could enhance the diagnostic accuracy of halitosis. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional analytical study was performed. The quality of expired air of 34 subjects without chief complaint of halitosis was assessed. Two experienced examiners carried out the OT. Afterward, a third blinded examiner performed Halimeter™ (HT) and Breath Alert™ (BA) tests. Results: The OT identified halitosis in 21 subjects (62%). The area under the ROC curve (95% confidence interval) was 0.67 (0.48-0.85) and 0.54 (0.34-0.75) for HT and BA, respectively. The accuracy for HT and BA was 59% and 47%, respectively. The combined usage of HT and BA provided 11 positive results, being 9 subjects (43%) out of the total of 21 positive cases. Conclusions: Halimeter™ and Breath Alert™ were not able to diagnose halitosis in non-complainer subjects at the same level as the organoleptic examination, since their accuracy were low. Our results suggest that such portable devices are not reliable tools to assess halitosis and may neglect or misdiagnose a considerable number of patients in clinical practice.Faculdade De Odontologia De Bauru - USP2017-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-77572017000500559Journal of Applied Oral Science v.25 n.5 2017reponame:Journal of applied oral science (Online)instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USP10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0305info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFalcão,Denise PinheiroMiranda,Priscila CarvalhoAlmeida,Tayana Filgueira GaldinoScalco,Monique Gomes da SilvaFregni,FelipeAmorim,Rivadávio Fernandes Batista deeng2017-10-19T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1678-77572017000500559Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/jaosPUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||jaos@usp.br1678-77651678-7757opendoar:2017-10-19T00:00Journal of applied oral science (Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Assessment of the accuracy of portable monitors for halitosis evaluation in subjects without malodor complaint. Are they reliable for clinical practice?
title Assessment of the accuracy of portable monitors for halitosis evaluation in subjects without malodor complaint. Are they reliable for clinical practice?
spellingShingle Assessment of the accuracy of portable monitors for halitosis evaluation in subjects without malodor complaint. Are they reliable for clinical practice?
Falcão,Denise Pinheiro
Halitosis
Diagnosis
title_short Assessment of the accuracy of portable monitors for halitosis evaluation in subjects without malodor complaint. Are they reliable for clinical practice?
title_full Assessment of the accuracy of portable monitors for halitosis evaluation in subjects without malodor complaint. Are they reliable for clinical practice?
title_fullStr Assessment of the accuracy of portable monitors for halitosis evaluation in subjects without malodor complaint. Are they reliable for clinical practice?
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of the accuracy of portable monitors for halitosis evaluation in subjects without malodor complaint. Are they reliable for clinical practice?
title_sort Assessment of the accuracy of portable monitors for halitosis evaluation in subjects without malodor complaint. Are they reliable for clinical practice?
author Falcão,Denise Pinheiro
author_facet Falcão,Denise Pinheiro
Miranda,Priscila Carvalho
Almeida,Tayana Filgueira Galdino
Scalco,Monique Gomes da Silva
Fregni,Felipe
Amorim,Rivadávio Fernandes Batista de
author_role author
author2 Miranda,Priscila Carvalho
Almeida,Tayana Filgueira Galdino
Scalco,Monique Gomes da Silva
Fregni,Felipe
Amorim,Rivadávio Fernandes Batista de
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Falcão,Denise Pinheiro
Miranda,Priscila Carvalho
Almeida,Tayana Filgueira Galdino
Scalco,Monique Gomes da Silva
Fregni,Felipe
Amorim,Rivadávio Fernandes Batista de
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Halitosis
Diagnosis
topic Halitosis
Diagnosis
description Abstract Halitosis is defined as a foul odor emanated from the oral cavity, with great impact in quality of life and social restraints. Recently, the use of Breath Alert™ in research increased significantly. Halimeter™, another portable device, is often used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, not many studies have verified the accuracy and compared the results of both devices simultaneously. Objective: To verify the accuracy of Breath Alert™ and Halimeter™ in patients without chief complaint of halitosis, using the organoleptic test (OT) as "gold standard." The second aim was to verify whether their concomitant use could enhance the diagnostic accuracy of halitosis. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional analytical study was performed. The quality of expired air of 34 subjects without chief complaint of halitosis was assessed. Two experienced examiners carried out the OT. Afterward, a third blinded examiner performed Halimeter™ (HT) and Breath Alert™ (BA) tests. Results: The OT identified halitosis in 21 subjects (62%). The area under the ROC curve (95% confidence interval) was 0.67 (0.48-0.85) and 0.54 (0.34-0.75) for HT and BA, respectively. The accuracy for HT and BA was 59% and 47%, respectively. The combined usage of HT and BA provided 11 positive results, being 9 subjects (43%) out of the total of 21 positive cases. Conclusions: Halimeter™ and Breath Alert™ were not able to diagnose halitosis in non-complainer subjects at the same level as the organoleptic examination, since their accuracy were low. Our results suggest that such portable devices are not reliable tools to assess halitosis and may neglect or misdiagnose a considerable number of patients in clinical practice.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-10-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-77572017000500559
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-77572017000500559
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0305
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade De Odontologia De Bauru - USP
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade De Odontologia De Bauru - USP
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Applied Oral Science v.25 n.5 2017
reponame:Journal of applied oral science (Online)
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Journal of applied oral science (Online)
collection Journal of applied oral science (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Journal of applied oral science (Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||jaos@usp.br
_version_ 1748936439479926784