Determination of oral malodor awareness by applying a questionnaire and evaluation of the effect of different toothpastes on the oral malodor by halimeter

Abstract

Aim: Halitosis is a common problem that can affect individuals of all ages. In this study, we aimed to determine the awareness of halitosis by evaluating the questionnaires and halimeter measurements together and to determine the effects on the halitosis level of toothpastes containing different active substances.

Material and Methods: A total of 308 students from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd year students of Gazi University Faculty of Dentistry were included in the study. Oral and written informed consent were obtained from all patients before the study. After the questionnaire was applied, 100 students were divided into two equal groups. The toothpaste group consisting of active substance zinc and the toothpaste group with active substance stannous consisted of 50 individuals.  Periodontal measurements and halitosis measurements were repeated three times, from these individuals at the beginning (t1), at one month (t2) and at three months (t3). Organoleptic method and portable sulfur monitor (Halimeter®) were used to determine the halitozis. All data were analyzed with statistical methods.

Results: Organoleptic scores (OLS) and halimeter values (HMD) were found significantly higher in patients who thought to halitosis (p <0.001). OLS and HMD were higher in patients who felt dryness in their mouth (p <0.05). HMD was higher in mouth breathing patients (p <0.05). There was a significant relationship between DMFT and OLS and HMD (p <0.001). No significant difference was found between the periodontal indeces and halitosis measurements obtained from two test groups using different toothpastes (p> 0.05).

Conclusion: In our study group, halitosis awareness was found to be high. Although toothpastes containing zinc and stannous are effective in reducing halitosis levels, it is not possible to mention that one is more effective than the other.

Keywords

• bad breath,halitosis,halimeter,zinc,stannous

Ağız kokusu farkındalığının anket uygulayarak belirlenmesi ve farklı diş macunlarının ağız kokusuna etkisinin halimeter ile ölçülerek değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Halitozis, her yaştan bireyleri etkileyebilen yaygın bir problemdir. Bu çalışmayla ağız kokusu farkındalığını anket ve halimeter ölçümlerini birlikte değerlendirerek tespit etmeyi ve farklı etken madde içeren diş macunlarının ağız kokusu üzerine etkilerini incelemeyi amaçladık.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya Gazi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi’nde öğrenim gören 1-2 ve 3. sınıftan toplam 308 öğrenci dahil edildi. Çalışma öncesi tüm hastalardan sözlü ve yazılı onamları alındı. Anket sonrası farklı derecede ağız kokusuna sahip olduğunu düşünen 100 birey iki eşit gruba ayrıldı. Etken maddesi çinko ve kalay olan iki diş macunu grubu ellişer bireyden oluştu.  Bu bireylerden başlangıç (t1), bir ay sonra (t2) ve üç ay sonra (t3) olmak üzere üç kez periodontal ölçümler ve ağız kokusu ölçümleri tekrarlandı. Ağız kokusunun belirlenmesinde organoleptik yöntem ve portatif sülfür monitörü (Halimeter®)kullanıldı. Elde edilen tüm veriler istatistiksel yöntemlerle incelendi. 

Bulgular: Ağız kokusunun var olduğunu düşünen ve hissedilen ağız kokusu seviyesini 0-5 arasında derecelendiren hastalarda, organoleptik skorlar (OLS) ve halimeter değerleri (HMD) anlamlı derecede yüksek bulundu (p<0,001). Ağız kuruluğu olan hastalarda OLS ve HMD daha yüksek bulundu (p<0,05). Ağız solunumu yapan hastalarda HMD yüksek bulundu (p<0,05). DMFT ile OLS ve HMD arasında anlamlı bir ilişki saptandı (p<0,001). Farklı macun kullanan iki test grubundan elde edilen indeksler ve ağız kokusu ölçümleri arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunamadı (p>0,05). 

Sonuç: Çalışma grubumuzun ağız kokusu farkındalıkları yüksek bulundu. Çinko ve kalay içeren diş macunları ağız kokusu seviyelerini azaltmada etkili olduğu istatistiksel olarak biri diğerine göre daha üstün bulunamadı. 

Keywords

• ağız kokusu,halitozis,halimeter,çinko,kalay

References

1. 1. Tonzetich J. Production and origin of oral malodor: a review of mechanisms and methods of analysis. Journal of periodontology 1977; 48:13-20.
2. 2. Scully C et al. Breath odor: etiopathogenesis, assessment and management. European journal of oral sciences 1997; 105: 287-93.
3. 3. Delanghe G et al. An inventory of patients' response to treatment at a multidisciplinary breath odor clinic. Quintessence international 1999; 30 (5).
4. 4. Liu, X.N et al. Oral malodor‐related parameters in the Chinese general population. Journal of clinical periodontology 2006; 33: 31-36.
5. 5. De Boever, E.H, Loesche W.J. Assessing the contribution of anaerobic microflora of the tongue to oral malodor. The Journal of the American Dental Association 1995; 126: 1384-93.
6. 6. Sanz M., Roldan S., Herrera D. Fundamentals of breath malodour. J Contemp Dent Pract 2001; 2:1-17.
7. 7. Morita M., Musinski D.L., Wang H.L., Assessment of newly developed tongue sulfide probe for detecting oral malodor. Journal of clinical periodontology 2001; 28: 494-96.
8. 8. Rosenberg M., McCulloch C.A. Measurement of oral malodor: current methods and future prospects. Journal of periodontology 1992; 63: 776-82.

9. 9. Lu H.X et al. Characteristics of patients complaining of halitosis and factors associated with halitosis. Oral diseases 2014; 20: 787-95.
10. 10. Quirynen M et al. Characteristics of 2000 patients who visited a halitosis clinic. Journal of clinical periodontology 2009; 36: 970-75.
11. 11. Miyazaki H et al. Correlation between volatile sulphur compounds and certain oral health measurements in the general population. Journal of periodontology 1995; 66: 679-84.
12. 12. Rosenberg M et al. Self-assessment of oral malodor 1 year following initial consultation. Quintessence international 1999; 30(5).
13. 13. Bornstein, M.M et al. Prevalence of halitosis in young male adults: a study in Swiss army recruits comparing self‐reported and clinical data. Journal of periodontology 2009; 80: 24-31.
14. 14. Iwanicka‐Grzegorek K et al. Comparison of ninhydrin method of detecting amine compounds with other methods of halitosis detection. Oral diseases 2005; 11: 37-39.
15. 15. Amir E, Shimonov R, Rosenberg M., Halitosis in children. The Journal of pediatrics, 1999; 134: 338-43.
16. 16. Nalçacı R, Sönmez I.S. Evaluation of oral malodor in children. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology 2008. 106: 384-88.
17. 17. Çiçek Y et al. Effect of tongue brushing on oral malodor in adolescents. Pediatrics international 2003; 45: 719-23.
18. 18. Nalcaci R, Baran I. Oral malodor and removable complete dentures in the elderly. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology, 2008; 105: 5-9.
19. 19. Suzuki N et al. The relationship between alcohol consumption and oral malodour. International dental journal 2009; 59: 31-34.
20. 20. Tonzetich J. Oral malodour. An indicator of health status and oral cleanliness. Int Dent J 1978; 28: 309-19.
21. 21. Pham T.A et al. Factors affecting oral malodor in periodontitis and gingivitis patients. Journal of investigative and clinical dentistry 2012; 3: 284-90.
22. 22. Schmidt, N.F. and W.J. Tarbet, The effect of oral rinses on organoleptic mouth odor ratings and levels of volatile sulfur compounds. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology 1978; 45: 876-83.
23. 23. Feng X et al. Breath malodor reduction with use of a stannous-containing sodium fluoride dentifrice: a meta-analysis of four randomized and controlled clinical trials. Am J Dent 2010; 23: 27-31