ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Diagnostic Equipment/standards , Halitosis/diagnosis , Reference Standards , Sensation , Sulfur Compounds/analysis , Time Factors , Breath Tests/instrumentation , Observer Variation , Cross-Sectional Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
Objetivo: comparar a viscosidade e o pH da saliva de portadores e não portadores de doença periodontal e verificar se há correlação entre pH e viscosidade salivar. Método: Realizou-se estudo caso-controle em que um total de 34 pacientes foram alocados equitativamente em 2 grupos. Coletou-se saliva total estimulada por meio de mastigação bilateral de garrote de silicone estéril. A mesma foi depositada em copo plástico descartável e imediatamente mergulhou-se, durante 30 segundos, o bulbo sensor do medidor de pH digital na saliva coletada. Para avaliação da viscosidade salivar utilizou-se viscosímetro de Ostwald modificado, modelo Cannon-Fenske Routine, tamanho 350. Valores menores que 1,5 centipoise (cp) foram considerados não viscosos, enquanto que para saliva viscosa considerou-se valores iguais ou maiores que 1,5 cp. Resultado: A mediana (intervalo interquartil) da viscosidade salivar dos portadores de doença periodontal foi 1,7 (1,4 a 3,4), enquanto que a do grupo controle foi 1,2 (1,1 a 1,3) cp (p<0,001). O pH salivar médio (intervalo de confiança de 95%) dos portadores e não portadores de doença periodontal foi 7,4 (7,2 a 7,6) e 7,2 (7,0 a 7,3), respectivamente (p = 0,04). Entretanto, a viscosidade salivar não se correlacionou com o pH salivar (rs = 0,05; p=0,7). Conclusão: A viscosidade da saliva de portadores de doença periodontal é maior do que a viscosidade da saliva de não portadores de doença periodontal
Objective: To compare the viscosity and pH of the saliva of subjects with and without periodontal disease and check for correlation between salivary pH and viscosity. Method: We conducted a case-control study in which a total of 34 patients were allocated equally into 2 groups. It was collected stimulated whole saliva by bilateral chewing of silicone sterile tourniquet. The saliva was deposited into a disposable plastic cup and immediately the bulb sensor of a digital pH meter was sank for 30 seconds in the collected saliva. For evaluation of salivary viscosity it was used a modified Ostwald viscometer, Model Cannon - Fenske Routine, size 350. Values less than 1.5 centipoise (cp) were considered non-viscous, whereas for viscous saliva it was considered values equal to or greater than 1.5 cp. Results: The median (interquartile range) viscosity saliva of patients with periodontal disease was 1.7 (1.4 to 3.4), while the control group was 1.2 (1.1 to 1.3) cp (p < 0.001). Salivary pH mean (confidence interval 95 %) of carriers and non-carriers of periodontal disease was 7.4 (7.2 to 7.6) and 7.2 (7.0 to 7.3), respectively (p = 0.04). However, the viscosity of saliva did not correlate with salivary pH (rs = 0.05, p =0.7). Conclusion: The viscosity of the saliva of patients with periodontal disease is greater than the viscosity of the saliva of non-periodontal disease subjects