The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 5 ( July, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Assessment of Oral Malodor: A Comparison of the Organoleptic Method with Sulfide Monitoring

Maryam Baharvand, Ziba Maleki, Sahar Mohammadi, Kaveh Alavi, Einaz Jalali Moghaddam

Citation Information : Baharvand M, Maleki Z, Mohammadi S, Alavi K, Moghaddam EJ. Assessment of Oral Malodor: A Comparison of the Organoleptic Method with Sulfide Monitoring. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (5):76-83.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-5-76

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 00-07-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The purpose of the present study was to measure the oral malodor of volunteers by means of a subjective organoleptic method and a sulfide monitor as well as to evaluate the diagnostic value of the Halimeter® in the diagnosis of halitosis.

Methods and Materials

Sulfide monitoring and organoleptic oral malodor assessment methods were performed on 77 volunteers (51 females, 26 males) selected from academic staff, students, clerks, and patients of the Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Dental School. The organoleptic method of assessment and sulphide monitoring were conducted by three calibrated judges. The Kendall's tau-b correlation analysis was used to calculate correlation coefficients between the sulfide monitor and organoleptic scores.

Results

The Kendall's correlation coefficient between sulfide monitoring and organoleptic scores was 0.493 (p<0.001). Sensitivity and specificity were assessed to be 61.1% and 87.8% respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) and the negative predictive value (NPV) were 81.5% and 72%, respectively. The intra-class correlation coefficient for the three episodes of monitoring was calculated as 97%.

Conclusion

Use of a sulfide montoring device in conjunction with the organoleptic method is an effective strategy for diagnosing oral malodor.

Clinical Relevance

Because of its small size and simplicity of handling the Halimeter sulfide monitor is convenient to use. This method of evaluation of patients for oral malodor is capable of differentiating normal patients (such as with Pseudohalitosis and halitophobia) from the others and for halitosis screening along with other techniques such as the organoleptic method. However, when used alone, it may lead to a misdiagnosis of some cases in terms of intensity.

Citation

Baharvand M, Maleki Z, Mohammadi S, Alavi K, Moghaddam EJ. Assessment of Oral Malodor: A Comparison of the Organoleptic Method with Sulfide Monitoring. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 July; (9)5:076-083.


PDF Share
  1. Examination, classification, and treatment of Halitosis. Clinical perspectives. J Can Assoc. May 2000;66(5):257-61.
  2. Fundamentals of Breath Malodour. J Contemp Dent Pract 2001 Nov;(2)4:001-017.
  3. Oral Malodor a periodontal perspective. JCDA. Feb 1997;25(2):153-60.
  4. The correlation between organoleptic mouthodor ratings and levels of volatile sulphure compounds. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1978; 45:561-567.
  5. Cleft palate- craniofacial J. Nov 2004, 41:6.
  6. March 1999:1-8.
  7. Clinical assessment of oral malodor by electronic nose system. J Dent Res 2004. 83(4):317-327.
  8. Halitosis measurement by an industrial sulfide monitor. J Periodontal. August 1991; 62(8):487-89.
  9. Evaluation of the relation between anaerobic gram negative microorganisms and breath malodor. Research, 354, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Dental School, 2002-2003.
  10. A new monitor with a zinc-oxide thin film semiconductor sensor for the measurement of volatile sulfur compound in mouth air. J Periodontal 1996; 67:396-40.
  11. Correlation Between using a new halitosis monitor and organoleptic assessment. J Periodontal R. Dec 1997;68(12):1182–85.
  12. Characteristics of gas chromatography for diagnosing halitosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. May 2001;91:5.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.