ORGANOLEPTIC AND HALITOMETRIC ASSESSMENTS DO NOT CORRELATE WELL IN INTRA-ORAL HALITOSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND

The gold standard method for diagnosing oral halitosis is the subjective organoleptic measurement. Device-supported methods are also widespread worldwide. The challenges and safety concerns around performing organoleptic measurements during pandemics and the diversity of measuring device alternatives raised our clinical question: which halitometer is the most suitable for diagnosing halitosis?

METHODS

This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42022320024). The search was performed on March 23, 2022 in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. Adult populations with or without halitosis were included, and patients with systemic diseases were excluded. Organoleptic (subjective) measurement and the device-supported (objective) methods were compared; the primary outcome was the correlation coefficient, and the secondary was the specificity and sensitivity of the devices. QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C were used to evaluate the risk of bias in the studies. Random-effects meta analyses were performed on the outcomes, and the secondary outcomes were plotted on a common ROC plot.

RESULTS

A total of 1231 records were found in the 5 databases. After the selection process, 76 articles were eligible for the systematic review, and 14,635 patients were involved in the qualitative analysis. The pooled Spearman's correlation coefficient (c.c.) for sulfide monitors was 0.65; 95% CIs: [0.53-0.74]; I2 = 95%, P < .01. The pooled Spearman's c.c. for portable gas chromatographs was 0.69; 95% CIs: [0.63-0.74]; I2 = 12%, P < .01. The pooled Spearman's c.c. for gas chromatographs was 0.76; 95% CIs: [0.67-0.83]; I2 = 0%, P < .01.

DISCUSSION

None of the most commonly used halitometers proved to be significantly superior to the others. Halimeter and OralChroma measurements did not correlate well with the organoleptic level of oral halitosis in adults. Therefore, better halitometers need to be developed as an alternative to organoleptic measurements.

Full-mouth treatment modalities (within 24 hours) for periodontitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a highly prevalent, chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Conventional treatment is quadrant scaling and root planing (the second step of periodontal therapy), which comprises scaling and root planing of teeth in one quadrant of the mouth at a time, with the four different sessions separated by at least one week. Alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced to help enhance treatment outcomes: full-mouth scaling (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants within 24 hours), or full-mouth disinfection (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants in 24 hours plus adjunctive antiseptic). We use the older term 'scaling and root planing' (SRP) interchangeably with the newer term 'subgingival instrumentation' in this iteration of the review, which updates one originally published in 2008 and first updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects of full-mouth scaling or full-mouth disinfection (within 24 hours) for the treatment of periodontitis compared to conventional quadrant subgingival instrumentation (over a series of visits at least one week apart) and to evaluate whether there was a difference in clinical effects between full-mouth disinfection and full-mouth scaling.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched five databases up to 17 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months that evaluated full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours, with or without adjunctive use of an antiseptic, compared to conventional quadrant SRP (control). Participants had a clinical diagnosis of (chronic) periodontitis according to the International Classification of Periodontal Diseases from 1999. A new periodontitis classification was launched in 2018; however, we used the 1999 classification for inclusion or exclusion of studies, as most studies used it. We excluded studies of people with systemic disorders, taking antibiotics or with the older diagnosis of 'aggressive periodontitis'.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment (based on randomisation method, allocation concealment, examiner blinding and completeness of follow-up). Our primary outcomes were tooth loss and change in probing pocket depth (PPD); secondary outcomes were change in probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level (CAL)), bleeding on probing (BOP), adverse events and pocket closure (the number/proportion of sites with PPD of 4 mm or less after treatment). We followed Cochrane's methodological guidelines for data extraction and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs, with 944 participants, in this updated review. No studies assessed the primary outcome tooth loss. Thirteen trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours without the use of antiseptic (FMS) versus control, 13 trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with adjunctive use of an antiseptic (FMD) versus control, and six trials compared FMS with FMD. Of the 13 trials comparing FMS versus control, we assessed three at high risk of bias, six at low risk of bias and four at unclear risk of bias. We assessed our certainty about the evidence as low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison. There was no evidence for a benefit for FMS over control for change in PPD, gain in CAL or reduction in BOP at six to eight months (PPD: mean difference (MD) 0.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.20; 5 trials, 148 participants; CAL: MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.26; 5 trials, 148 participants; BOP: MD 2.64%, 95% CI -8.81 to 14.09; 3 trials, 80 participants). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 50%), but none for PPD and CAL. Of the 13 trials comparing FMD versus control, we judged four at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and eight at unclear risk of bias. At six to eight months, there was no evidence for a benefit for FMD over control for change in PPD or CAL (PPD: MD 0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.27; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.24; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence). The analyses found no evidence of a benefit for FMD over control for BOP (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of heterogeneity for PPD or CAL, but considerable evidence of heterogeneity for BOP, attributed to one study. There were no consistent differences in these outcomes between intervention and control (low- to very low-certainty evidence). Of the six trials comparing FMS and FMD, we judged two trials at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and three as unclear. At six to eight months, there was no evidence of a benefit of FMD over FMS for change in PPD or gain in CAL (PPD: MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07; P = 0.22; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: MD -0.05 mm, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.13; P = 0.58; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between FMS and FMD for BOP at any time point (P = 0.98; 2 trials, 22 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 52%), but not for PPD or CAL. Thirteen studies predefined adverse events as an outcome; three reported an event after FMD or FMS. The most important harm identified was an increase in body temperature. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for most comparisons and outcomes as low because of design limitations leading to risk of bias, and the small number of trials and participants, leading to imprecision in the effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of nine new RCTs in this updated review has not changed the conclusions of the previous version of the review. There is still no clear evidence that FMS or FMD approaches provide additional clinical benefit compared to conventional mechanical treatment for adult periodontitis. In practice, the decision to select one approach to non-surgical periodontal therapy over another should include patient preference and the convenience of the treatment schedule.

Salivary β-galactosidase, halitosis parameters in periodontal health and disease, and their changes after periodontal treatment

BACKGROUND

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the salivary β-galactosidase and Halimeter values (HMV), organoleptic scores (OLS) and Winkel tongue coating index (WTCI) in periodontal health and periodontitis (P), and also their changes after phase I periodontal therapy and tongue cleaning.

METHODS

The participants were separated as follows: 25 P with halitosis (Group 1), 25 P without halitosis (Group 2) and 25 healthy controls (Group 3). Periodontal recordings, HMV, OLS and WTCI scores were recorded, and whole saliva β-galactosidase levels were measured colorimetrically in the samples at baseline and 1 month after the therapy.

RESULTS

The baseline values of HMV, OLS, WTCI and salivary β-galactosidase levels were significantly higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (P < 0.05). There was a statistically significant decrease in periodontal recordings, HMV, OLS, WTCI and salivary β-galactosidase levels in all P patients by the therapy (P < 0.05). However, major reductions in halitosis measurements and saliva enzyme levels were observed in Group 1 after the treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that salivary β-galactosidase was associated with halitosis parameters and phase I periodontal therapy played an important role to reduce this enzyme level and halitosis parameters in P.

The association between periodontal diseases and halitosis among Saudi patients

Objectives

To assess the relationship between the presence of periodontal disease and halitosis.

Methods

A total of 120 patients were enrolled and divided into 2 groups, 60 patients with probing depth (PD) > 3.0 mm (group 1) and 60 patients with PD ≤ 3.0 mm (group 2). Clinical parameters including, plaque index (PI), bleeding index (BI), and PD were obtained. Breath samples were collected and analyzed using a portable gas chromatograph to measure the concentration of volatile sulfur compounds (VSC).

Results

Halitosis was found to affect 58.3% of the total patients. The means of PI, BI, and VSC were significantly higher in group 1 (PD > 3.0 mm) than in group 2 (PD ≤ 3 mm).

Conclusions

The percentage of patients suffering from halitosis in the Saudi population are comparatively high. In addition, there was a positive association between periodontal disease and halitosis.

Interventions for managing halitosis

BACKGROUND

Halitosis or bad breath is a symptom in which a noticeably unpleasant breath odour is present due to an underlying oral or systemic disease. 50% to 60% of the world population has experienced this problem which can lead to social stigma and loss of self-confidence. Multiple interventions have been tried to control halitosis ranging from mouthwashes and toothpastes to lasers. This new Cochrane Review incorporates Cochrane Reviews previously published on tongue scraping and mouthrinses for halitosis.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of various interventions used to control halitosis due to oral diseases only. We excluded studies including patients with halitosis secondary to systemic disease and halitosis-masking interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 April 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 April 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 April 2019). We also searched LILACS BIREME (1982 to 19 April 2019), the National Database of Indian Medical Journals (1985 to 19 April 2019), OpenGrey (1992 to 19 April 2019), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 19 April 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (8 April 2019), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (8 April 2019), the ISRCTN Registry (19 April 2019), the Clinical Trials Registry - India (19 April 2019), were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched the cross-references of included studies and systematic reviews published on the topic. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults over the age of 16, and any intervention for managing halitosis compared to another or placebo, or no intervention. The active interventions or controls were administered over a minimum of one week and with no upper time limit. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, trials comparing the results for less than one week follow-up, and studies including advanced periodontitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two pairs of review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 trials in the review with 1809 participants comparing an intervention with a placebo or a control. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years. Most of the trials reported on short-term follow-up (ranging from one week to four weeks). Only one trial reported long-term follow-up (three months). Three studies were at low overall risk of bias, 16 at high overall risk of bias, and the remaining 25 at unclear overall risk of bias. We compared different types of interventions which were categorised as mechanical debridement, chewing gums, systemic deodorising agents, topical agents, toothpastes, mouthrinse/mouthwash, tablets, and combination methods. Mechanical debridement: for mechanical tongue cleaning versus no tongue cleaning, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07; 2 trials, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Chewing gums: for 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum versus placebo chewing gum, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.11; 1 trial, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Systemic deodorising agents: for 1000 mg champignon versus placebo, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome patient-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (MD -1.07, 95% CI -14.51 to 12.37; 1 trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for dentist-reported OLT score or adverse events. Topical agents: for hinokitiol gel versus placebo gel, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.72; 1 trial, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Toothpastes: for 0.3% triclosan toothpaste versus control toothpaste, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -3.48, 95% CI -3.77 to -3.19; 1 trial, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Mouthrinse/mouthwash: for mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate versus placebo mouthwash, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.18; 1 trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Tablets: no data were reported on key outcomes for this comparison. Combination methods: for brushing plus cetylpyridium mouthwash versus brushing, the evidence was uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.24; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions for managing halitosis compared to placebo or control for the OLT and patient-reported outcomes tested. We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of any intervention or concentration. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardising the interventions and concentrations.

Reliability, Accuracy, and Use Frequency of Evaluation Methods for Amount of Tongue Coating

OBJECTIVE

To classify the evaluation methods for amount of tongue coating (TC) and investigate their reliability, accuracy, and frequency of use.

METHODS

Articles published from 1985 to 2015 were searched for evaluation methods for the amount of TC in PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Only clinical researches were included except protocol articles. The methods were classified according to their characteristics.

RESULTS

Finally, 113 articles were selected. The evaluation method for the amount of TC from the articles was classified into 4 types: intuitive, specificative, computerized, and weighing TC. The reliability in the intuitive and specificative methods (κ =0.33-0.92) showed varying levels among the studies. In general, the amount of TC calculated by the specificative method (Spearman's r=0.68-0.80) was more strongly related to the directly measured value than to the value estimated by the computerized method (Pearson's r=0.442). The number of articles published on this topic has increased consistently, and the specificative method was the most frequently used. Despite the higher reliability of the computerized method, it has not been widely used.

CONCLUSIONS

The high prevalence of the specificative method would continue in clinical practice because of its convenience and accuracy. However, to establish higher reliability, the limitation of the subjectivity of the assessors should be overcome through calibration training. In the computerized method, novel algorithms are needed to obtain a higher accuracy so that it can help the practitioners confidently estimate the amount of TC.

The effect of professional tooth cleaning or non-surgical periodontal therapy on oral halitosis in patients with periodontal diseases. A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to give the best available evidence on the impact of professional tooth cleaning (PTC) and scaling and root planing (SRP) on oral halitosis in patients with periodontal diseases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three databases were screened for relevant studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCT) were included. The primary outcome in all included studies was volatile sulphur compounds (VSC) measured by Halimeter or OralChroma and organoleptic scores as secondary outcome. Only studies investigating healthy adults except for periodontitis or gingivitis were included. The considered intervention strategies were professional tooth cleaning and non-surgical periodontal treatment. For both strategies, additional oral hygiene instructions (OHI) were possible. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and quality assessment.

SEARCH RESULTS

After abstract and title screening and subsequent full-text reading of potential papers, a placebo-controlled RCT could not be found. However, eight studies or particular arms used PTC or SRP as sole interventions and were included in this review. All trials or study arms included showed a positive effect on VSC levels or organoleptic scores after intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on best available evidence, PTC and SRP in combination with oral hygiene instructions reduced VSC values in patients with oral halitosis and/or periodontal diseases, independent of tongue cleaning and the use of mouth rinses.