Comparison of clinical indices with halitosis grading in chronic periodontitis: A randomized control trial.

Junaid Mushtaq Veeray, K K Gupta, Sweta Soni, Divya Kothari
{"title":"Comparison of clinical indices with halitosis grading in chronic periodontitis: A randomized control trial.","authors":"Junaid Mushtaq Veeray,&nbsp;K K Gupta,&nbsp;Sweta Soni,&nbsp;Divya Kothari","doi":"10.4103/jisp.jisp_197_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Oral malodor is a major periodontal complaint, but the best method for assessing the halitosis grade is still undefined. The primary objective of the study was to detect the halitosis grade in the exhaled breath using the three distinct techniques and to compare the readings with different clinical indices to find out the best method of halitosis grading.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 90 patients with chronic periodontitis having oral malodor were included in the study. The subjective assessment of the exhaled breath (halitosis grading) was done by three different methods; using a handheld portable Tanita FitScan sulfide monitor, by Halitox toxin assay, and by organoleptic (Sniff test) method. The findings were then compared with the clinical parameters of poor oral hygiene like plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), gingival bleeding index (BI), and pocket depth (PD) to detect the best method of halitosis grading.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of the patients included was 38.23 ± 8.83 (mean ± standard deviation) years. The median value of halitosis grading as obtained by Tanita FitScan was 3.0 (95% confidence interval as 2 and 4) which was then compared with clinical indices (PI, GI, BI, and PD) and the results were statistically significant (<i>P</i> < 0.05), whereas the other two techniques of halitosis grading gave insignificant results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results confirmed that the halitosis grading done using Tanita FitScan sulfide monitor is more appropriate with respect to clinical indices when compared with the other two techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":15890,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology","volume":"27 4","pages":"422-427"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10431231/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_197_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Oral malodor is a major periodontal complaint, but the best method for assessing the halitosis grade is still undefined. The primary objective of the study was to detect the halitosis grade in the exhaled breath using the three distinct techniques and to compare the readings with different clinical indices to find out the best method of halitosis grading.

Materials and methods: A total of 90 patients with chronic periodontitis having oral malodor were included in the study. The subjective assessment of the exhaled breath (halitosis grading) was done by three different methods; using a handheld portable Tanita FitScan sulfide monitor, by Halitox toxin assay, and by organoleptic (Sniff test) method. The findings were then compared with the clinical parameters of poor oral hygiene like plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), gingival bleeding index (BI), and pocket depth (PD) to detect the best method of halitosis grading.

Results: The mean age of the patients included was 38.23 ± 8.83 (mean ± standard deviation) years. The median value of halitosis grading as obtained by Tanita FitScan was 3.0 (95% confidence interval as 2 and 4) which was then compared with clinical indices (PI, GI, BI, and PD) and the results were statistically significant (P < 0.05), whereas the other two techniques of halitosis grading gave insignificant results.

Conclusion: The results confirmed that the halitosis grading done using Tanita FitScan sulfide monitor is more appropriate with respect to clinical indices when compared with the other two techniques.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
慢性牙周炎临床指标与口臭分级的比较:一项随机对照试验。
背景:口腔恶臭是一种主要的牙周病,但评估口臭等级的最佳方法尚不明确。该研究的主要目的是使用三种不同的技术检测呼出气体中的口臭等级,并将读数与不同的临床指标进行比较,以找出口臭分级的最佳方法。材料和方法:本研究共纳入90例伴有口腔恶臭的慢性牙周炎患者。通过三种不同的方法对呼出气体进行主观评估(口臭分级);使用手持式便携式Tanita FitScan硫化物监测仪,通过Halitox毒素测定和感官(嗅觉测试)方法。然后将研究结果与口腔卫生不良的临床参数(如牙菌斑指数(PI)、牙龈指数(GI)、牙龈出血指数(BI)和袋深(PD))进行比较,以确定口臭分级的最佳方法。结果:入选患者的平均年龄为38.23±8.83岁(平均值±标准差)。Tanita FitScan获得的口臭分级中值为3.0(95%置信区间为2和4),然后将其与临床指标(PI、GI、BI和PD)进行比较,结果具有统计学意义(P<0.05),而其他两种口臭分级技术的结果不显著。结论:与其他两种技术相比,使用Tanita FitScan硫化物监测仪进行的口臭分级在临床指标方面更为合适。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
44 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology publishes original scientific articles to support practice , education and research in the dental specialty of periodontology and oral implantology. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology (JISP), is the official publication of the Society and is managed and brought out by the Editor of the society. The journal is published Bimonthly with special issues being brought out for specific occasions. The ISP had a bulletin as its publication for a large number of years and was enhanced as a Journal a few years ago
期刊最新文献
Applications of a minimally invasive roll flap technique in peri-implant soft-tissue augmentation - A case series. Impact of periodontal phenotype on the outcome of subgingival instrumentation in Stage II and III, Grade A and B periodontitis. Indian Society of Periodontology Scientific Events. Is the oral hygiene complete without the tongue cleaning? Longterm success of implants: Supportive peri-implant care is the "MANTRA"??
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1