ArticleJournal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Comparison of clinical indices with halitosis grading in chronic periodontitis: A randomized control trial.
Article in Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dietary Sulfur Compounds and Halitosis: Bridging Food Science, Microbial Metabolism, and Oral Health: A Comprehensive Review.Molecular nutrition & food research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oral malodor is a major periodontal complaint, but the best method for assessing the halitosis grade is still undefined. The primary objective of the study was to detect the halitosis grade in the exhaled breath using the three distinct techniques and to compare the readings with different clinical indices to find out the best method of halitosis grading. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 patients with chronic periodontitis having oral malodor were included in the study. The subjective assessment of the exhaled breath (halitosis grading) was done by three different methods; using a handheld portable Tanita FitScan sulfide monitor, by Halitox toxin assay, and by organoleptic (Sniff test) method. The findings were then compared with the clinical parameters of poor oral hygiene like plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), gingival bleeding index (BI), and pocket depth (PD) to detect the best method of halitosis grading. Results: The mean age of the patients included was 38.23 ± 8.83 (mean ± standard deviation) years. The median value of halitosis grading as obtained by Tanita FitScan was 3.0 (95% confidence interval as 2 and 4) which was then compared with clinical indices (PI, GI, BI, and PD) and the results were statistically significant ( Conclusion: The results confirmed that the halitosis grading done using Tanita FitScan sulfide monitor is more appropriate with respect to clinical indices when compared with the other two techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.