Abstract
Objectives
Already decades ago, the diagnosis of halitosis was facilitated with the arrival of chair-side instruments to score the breath odor. These devices are used for a more objective assessment of halitosis compared with organoleptic scoring, but these too have their disadvantages. To overcome some of the drawbacks of the original model of the OralChromaTM (CHM-1), few years ago a second generation of this machine (CHM-2) was introduced. This study compared both devices in a clinical setting.
Materials and methods
All records of the patients visiting a specialized halitosis consultation over a period of 5 years (2012–2017) were examined. The correlations of the OralChromaTM CHM-1 and CHM-2 with the organoleptic and Halimeter® measurements were analyzed. Additionally the sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predicted values were calculated.
Results
A total of 581 data points were included (CHM-1: 292, CHM-2: 289). The correlations between both models with the organoleptic measurements were not statistically significant different. The CHM-2 seemed superior to the CHM-1 in the quantification of dimethyl sulfide with a detection rate of 95% and 61%, respectively. Additionally, the CHM-2 was significantly more sensitive for dimethyl sulfide than the CHM-1. However the latter showed in turn a better sensitivity for hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan.
Conclusion
The CHM-2 showed a better sensitivity for dimethyl sulfide than its predecessor. However, its sensitivity for hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan was worse.
Clinical relevance
Dimethyl sulfide is the main volatile implicated in extra-oral blood-borne halitosis, this makes the OralChromaTM CHM-2 the instrument of choice when this is suspected.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Yaegaki K, Coil JM (2000) Examination, classification, and treatment of halitosis; clinical perspectives. J Can Dent Assoc 66:257–261
Seemann R, Conceicao MD, Filippi A, Greenman J, Lenton P, Nachnani S, Quirynen M, Roldan S, Schulze H, Sterer N, Tangerman A, Winkel EG, Yaegaki K, Rosenberg M (2014) Halitosis management by the general dental practitioner—results of an international consensus workshop. J Breath Res 8:017101. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/8/1/017101
Aydin M, Harvey-Woodworth CN (2014) Halitosis: a new definition and classification. Br Dent J 217:E1. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.552
Tangerman A, Winkel EG (2007) Intra- and extra-oral halitosis: finding of a new form of extra-oral blood-borne halitosis caused by dimethyl sulfide. J Clin Periodontol 34:748–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01116.x
Tonzetich J (1977) Production and origin of oral malodor: a review of mechanisms and methods of analysis. J Periodontol 48:13–20
Loesche WJ, Kazor C (2002) Microbiology and treatment of halitosis. Periodontol 28:256–279
Ng W, Tonzetich J (1984) Effect of hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan on the permeability of oral mucosa. J Dent Res 63:994–997. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345840630071701
Greenman J, Lenton P, Seemann R, Nachnani S (2014) Organoleptic assessment of halitosis for dental professionals--general recommendations. J Breath Res 8:017102. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/8/1/017102
Laleman I, Dadamio J, De Geest S et al (2014) Instrumental assessment of halitosis for the general dental practitioner. J Breath Res 8:017103. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/8/1/017103
Rosenberg M, Septon I, Eli I, Bar-Ness R, Gelernter I, Brenner S, Gabbay J (1991) Halitosis measurement by an industrial sulfide monitor. J Periodontol 62:487–489. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1991.62.8.487
Furne J, Majerus G, Lenton P, Springfield J, Levitt DG, Levitt MD (2002) Comparison of volatile sulfur compound concentrations measured with a sulfide detector vs. gas chromatography. J Dent Res 81:140–143
Hanada M, Koda H, Onaga K et al (2003) Portable oral malodor analyzer using highly sensitive In2O3 gas sensor combined with a simple gas chromatography system. Anal Chim Acta 475:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(02)01038-3
Tangerman A, Winkel EG (2008) The portable gas chromatograph OralChromaTM: a method of choice to detect oral and extra-oral halitosis. J Breath Res 2:017010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/2/1/017010
Szabó A, Tarnai Z, Berkovits C, Novák P, Mohácsi Á, Braunitzer G, Rakonczay Z, Turzó K, Nagy K, Szabó G (2015) Volatile sulphur compound measurement with OralChroma(TM): a methodological improvement. J Breath Res 9:016001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/9/1/016001
Laleman I, De Geest S, Dekeyser C et al (2018) A new method of choice for organoleptic scoring: the negative-pressure technique. J Clin Periodontol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13012
Dadamio J, Laleman I, De Geest S et al (2013) Usefulness of a new malodour-compound detection portable device in oral malodour diagnosis. J Breath Res 7:046005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/7/4/046005
Quirynen M, Dadamio J, Van den Velde S et al (2009) Characteristics of 2000 patients who visited a halitosis clinic. J Clin Periodontol 36:970–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01478.x
Tsai C-C, Chou H-H, Wu T-L, Yang YH, Ho KY, Wu YM, Ho YP (2008) The levels of volatile sulfur compounds in mouth air from patients with chronic periodontitis. J Periodontal Res 43:186–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0765.2007.01011.x
Vandekerckhove B, Van den Velde S, De Smit M et al (2009) Clinical reliability of non-organoleptic oral malodour measurements. J Clin Periodontol 36:964–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01473.x
Dadamio J, Van Tornout M, Van den Velde S et al (2011) A novel and visual test for oral malodour: first observations. J Breath Res 5:046003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/5/4/046003
Dadamio J, Van Tornout M, Vancauwenberghe F et al (2012) Clinical utility of a novel colorimetric chair side test for oral malodour. J Clin Periodontol 39:645–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01901.x
Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Hooft L, Irwig L, Levine D, Reitsma JB, de Vet HC, Bossuyt PM (2016) STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open 6:e012799. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799
Sorensen HT, Sabroe S, Olsen J (1996) A framework for evaluation of secondary data sources for epidemiological research. Int J Epidemiol 25:435–442
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge Sophie De Geest for the clinical management of the halitosis consultation, Shigenori Hirano (Customer Relationship Manager from Nissha FIS, Inc.) for the explanation of the differences between the OralChroma CHM-1 and CHM-2, Michiel Laleman for his assistance with figure 3, and Manoetjer Siawasch for proofreading the last version of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
For this study, the authors got permission from the Ethics Committee Research UZ/KU Leuven. The number assigned to this protocol is s60615.
Informed consent
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Laleman, I., Dekeyser, C., Wylleman, A. et al. The OralChromaTM CHM-2: a comparison with the OralChromaTM CHM-1. Clin Oral Invest 24, 2829–2836 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03148-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03148-9