AIM: To evaluate the reliability of the measurements obtained from different parts of the oral cavity using an infrared auditory thermometer, and to contrast these results with those obtained from the axilla and auditory canal. STUDY DESIGN: A comparative descriptive design was used to establish differences between the temperature recordings made in 66 healthy volunteers with an infrared auditory thermometer applied to different parts of the body (oral cavity and left ear) versus the recordings obtained with a glass mercury thermometer in the axillary zone. The study sample was balanced with respect to gender, and the mean age was 21.15 (+/- 1.61) years. RESULTS: The largest standard deviation of all the locations corresponded to the left ear. This variable did not present a normal distribution. However, there were no statistically significant differences among the consecutive measurements made in the different anatomical (oral or axillary) regions. CONCLUSIONS: The thermal device used in this study seems to fulfill most of the requirements of an ideal clinical thermometer for yielding objective information on body temperature. It is easy to use, noninvasive, inexpensive and rapid. The temperature in the oral cavity is very representative of body temperature.
AIM: To evaluate the reliability of the measurements obtained from different parts of the oral cavity using an infrared auditory thermometer, and to contrast these results with those obtained from the axilla and auditory canal. STUDY DESIGN: A comparative descriptive design was used to establish differences between the temperature recordings made in 66 healthy volunteers with an infrared auditory thermometer applied to different parts of the body (oral cavity and left ear) versus the recordings obtained with a glass mercury thermometer in the axillary zone. The study sample was balanced with respect to gender, and the mean age was 21.15 (+/- 1.61) years. RESULTS: The largest standard deviation of all the locations corresponded to the left ear. This variable did not present a normal distribution. However, there were no statistically significant differences among the consecutive measurements made in the different anatomical (oral or axillary) regions. CONCLUSIONS: The thermal device used in this study seems to fulfill most of the requirements of an ideal clinical thermometer for yielding objective information on body temperature. It is easy to use, noninvasive, inexpensive and rapid. The temperature in the oral cavity is very representative of body temperature.