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: https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/140025
Resumo: 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_ea099154f978b8270d7fd341579282bb
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/140025
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?HalitosisDiagnosis 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.Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru2017-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/14002510.1590/1678-7757-2016-0305Journal of Applied Oral Science; Vol. 25 No. 5 (2017); 559-565Journal of Applied Oral Science; Vol. 25 Núm. 5 (2017); 559-565Journal of Applied Oral Science; v. 25 n. 5 (2017); 559-5651678-77651678-7757reponame:Journal of applied oral science (Online)instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/140025/135225Copyright (c) 2017 Journal of Applied Oral Scienceinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFalcão, Denise PinheiroMiranda, Priscila CarvalhoAlmeida, Tayana Filgueira GaldinoScalco, Monique Gomes da SilvaFregni, FelipeAmorim, Rivadávio Fernandes Batista de2017-10-25T11:51:34Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/140025Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/jaosPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/oai||jaos@usp.br1678-77651678-7757opendoar:2017-10-25T11:51:34Journal 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 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
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/140025
10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0305
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/140025
identifier_str_mv 10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0305
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/140025/135225
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2017 Journal of Applied Oral Science
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2017 Journal of Applied Oral Science
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Applied Oral Science; Vol. 25 No. 5 (2017); 559-565
Journal of Applied Oral Science; Vol. 25 Núm. 5 (2017); 559-565
Journal of Applied Oral Science; v. 25 n. 5 (2017); 559-565
1678-7765
1678-7757
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_ 1800221680440705024