| Literature DB >> 26266414 |
Enrico Marchetti1, Simona Tecco2, Marco Santonico3, Chiara Vernile4, Daniele Ciciarelli5, Ester Tarantino6, Giuseppe Marzo7, Giorgio Pennazza8.
Abstract
The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate whether a recently described multi-sensor approach called BIONOTE(®) is accurate enough to verify the efficacy of treatment of patients with halitosis. A treatment with Lactobacillus brevis (CD2)-containing lozenges, compared with placebo was tested. The BIONOTE(®) was compared with traditional techniques used to detect halitosis: OralChroma™ and two calibrated odor judges enrolled for the organoleptic assessments. Twenty patients (10 treated and 10 placebo), suffering from active phase halitosis were included in the study. Treatment consisted of Lactobacillus brevis (CD2)-containing lozenges or placebo, 4 tablets/day for 14 days. t0 was before the beginning of the study; t1 was day 7 and t2 was day 14. The effectiveness of treatment was assessed through: (1) Rosenberg score; (2) Winkel tongue coating index (WTCI) anterior and posterior; (2) OralChroma™; (3) the new developed multi-sensor approach, called BIONOTE(®) (test technique). Only the WTCI anterior revealed statistically significant changes between t0 and t2 data (p = 0.014) in the treated group. Except for the WTCI anterior, all diagnostic methods revealed the lack of effectiveness for halitosis of a 14-days treatment with Lactobacillus brevis (CD2)-containing lozenges. The BIONOTE(®) multisensor system seems accurate in addition to OralChroma™ to assess the initial condition of halitosis and its mitigation during treatment.Entities:
Keywords: bad breath; chemical sensors; electronic nose; halitosis; probiotics; sensor array
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26266414 PMCID: PMC4570386 DOI: 10.3390/s150819583
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Flow diagram of the CONSORT 2010 study.
Outcome measures and description of how they were assessed.
| Outcome Measures | Description of How Outcome Measures Were Assessed |
|---|---|
| Winkel Tongue Coating Index (WTCI), anterior and posterior | The dorsum of the tongue was divided into six areas (three posterior, three anterior) and tongue coating was assessed in each sextant as follows; 0 = no coating, 1 = light coating, 2 = severe coating. The WTCI was obtained by adding all six scores, for a possible range of 0–6 for WTCI anterior and 0–6 for WTCI posterior. |
| The Rosenberg score, organoleptic measurement | The organoleptic measurement depends on a trained examiner that has demonstrated reliability in smelling halitosis. The operator, preferably blindfolded, sniffs the air exhaled from the mouth at a distance of 10 cm. For recording a scale of 5 values is used. The test is considered positive when the “hedonic” value assigned to breath exceeds the number 2. The scale includes the following values: 0 = no odor; 1 = doubtful presence of halitosis; 2 = slight odor but clearly notifiable; 3 = moderate halitosis; 4 = strong halitosis; 5 = very intense halitosis. |
| Gas chromatography score, measured with OralChroma™ | Measure the molecular levels of the three major VSCs (hydrogen sulphide, methyl mercaptan and dimethyl sulfide) in a sample of mouth air. The levels (measured in ppm) are reported in a diagram from low to high level. A cognitive threshold is individuated and levels are individuated as “more than” or “less than” the cognitive threshold. |
| BP (breath print) constructed by BIONOTE® | Individual Breathprint (BP) of a patient is represented with a radar plot; equiangular radii shape each radar plot, where each radius represents one of the 28 sensor responses. The radius length gives magnitude of each sensor response (expressed in Hz, because relative to a resonant frequency shoft of the quartz slice). The radar plot “profile” consists of a line drawn connecting the data values for each radius. |
Figure 2The Breathprint (BP) of one of the patients at day 0, day 7 and day 14.
Baseline demographic data.
| Placebo ( | ||
|---|---|---|
| 33 ± 9 | 36 ± 7 | |
| 12 | 11 |
Figure 3Results of the experiment. Predicted cases at Day 0 (t0), Dat 7 (t1) and Day 14 (t2). OC: OralChroma™; (a,b) predicted by OralChroma™; (c,d) predicted by BIONOTE®; (e,f) predicted by data fusion. See text for details.
Oral Chroma™.
| RMSEC LV1 | RMSEC LV2 | RMSECV LV1 | RMSECV LV2 | #LV | LV1 PRESS | LV2 PRESS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Binary classification (0–7) | 0.45 | 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.48 | 2 | 4.88 | 4.74 |
| Binary classification (0–14) | 0.46 | 0.45 | 0.542 | 0.541 | 2 | 5.89 | 5.87 |
| Binary classification (7–14) | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 2 | 6.7 | 7.2 |
BIONOTE®.
| RMSEC LV1 | RMSEC LV2 | RMSECV LV1 | RMSECV LV2 | #LV | LV1 PRESS | LV2 PRESS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Binary classification (0–7) | 0.43 | 0.41 | 0.45 | 0.44 | 2 | 4.75 | 4.66 |
| Binary classification (0–14) | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.47 | 0.46 | 2 | 4.89 | 4.75 |
| Binary classification (7–14) | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.54 | 2 | 6.4 | 7.1 |
Data fusion.
| RMSEC LV1 | RMSEC LV2 | RMSECV LV1 | RMSECV LV2 | #LV | LV1 PRESS | LV2 PRESS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Binary classification (0–7) | 0.61 | 0.54 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 2 | 8.77 | 6.43 |
| Binary classification (0–14) | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.66 | 0.59 | 2 | 8.79 | 7.11 |
| Binary classification (7–14) | 0.53 | 0.50 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 2 | 8.32 | 8.58 |