ARTICLE DOWNLOAD

The OralChromaTM CHM-2: a comparison with the OralChromaTM CHM-1

10$
ARTICLE DOWNLOAD

The OralChromaTM CHM-2: a comparison with the OralChromaTM CHM-1

10$

I. Laleman, C. Dekeyser, A. Wylleman, W. Teughels & M. Quirynen 

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.

Only units of this product remain
Year 2020
Language English
Format PDF
DOI 10.1007/s00784-019-03148-9