Halitosis is defined as a foul odor emanated from the oral cavity, with great impact in quality of life and social restraints. Recently, the use of Breath Alert™ in research increased significantly. Halimeter™, another portable device, is often used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, not many studies have verified the accuracy and compared the results of both devices simultaneously. Objective: To verify the accuracy of Breath Alert™ and Halimeter™ in patients without chief complaint of halitosis, using the organoleptic test (OT) as "gold standard." The second aim was to verify whether their concomitant use could enhance the diagnostic accuracy of halitosis. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional analytical study was performed. The quality of expired air of 34 subjects without chief complaint of halitosis was assessed. Two experienced examiners carried out the OT. Afterward, a third blinded examiner performed Halimeter™ (HT) and Breath Alert™ (BA) tests. Results: The OT identified halitosis in 21 subjects (62%). The area under the ROC curve (95% confidence interval) was 0.67 (0.48-0.85) and 0.54 (0.34-0.75) for HT and BA, respectively. The accuracy for HT and BA was 59% and 47%, respectively. The combined usage of HT and BA provided 11 positive results, being 9 subjects (43%) out of the total of 21 positive cases. Conclusions: Halimeter™ and Breath Alert™ were not able to diagnose halitosis in non-complainer subjects at the same level as the organoleptic examination, since their accuracy were low. Our results suggest that such portable devices are not reliable tools to assess halitosis and may neglect or misdiagnose a considerable number of patients in clinical practice.

Objectives. To establish referential values ranges of hyposalivation and normosalivation for the salivary flow rate (SFR) of upper labial (LS) and palatal (PS) mucosa using Schirmer's test strips paper and as a second goal to determine the values ranges of the SFR of palatal (PS) and upper labial (LS) mucosa in subjects with and without xerostomia. Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted among subjects distributed in three groups according to their unstimulated and stimulated whole saliva. Results. 144 subjects were enrolled in groups as follows: severe hyposalivation (n = 24), mild hyposalivation (n = 78), and normosalivation (n = 42). The mean and the 95% confidence interval for the LS flow rate (μL/cm2/min) were 3.2 (2.46 to 3.94), 5.86 (4.96 to 6.75), and 9.08 (7.63 to 10.53) (P < 0.001) for each group, respectively. The PS results were 1.01 (0.68 to 1.34), 1.72 (1.31 to 2.13), and 2.44 (1.66 to 3.22) (P = 0.014). Xerostomia complainers presented lower rates of LS (5.17 (4.06 to 6.23)) than non-complainers (7.33 (6.4 to 8.27)) (P = 0.003). Conclusions. The test was reliable to provide referential values ranges for LS flow rate measurement and was shown to be valid to distinguish normosalivation from severe and mild hyposalivation and also to predict xerostomia.