Skip to content

Cart

Your cart is empty

The difference, in plain terms

Everyone hands you data. We hand you the reasoning - and show our work.

Most oral tests report bacteria levels and leave the interpretation to you. OraPath shows exactly how every score is built - the bacteria, the weights, the penalties, and the published research behind each decision. You can check our work. Most never show theirs.

Everyone hands you data.
The usual approach

"Here's what we found."

A list of bacteria at some level.
You decide what it means.
The scoring logic, if any, is a black box.
No published method to check.
OraPath

"Here's what it means - and why."

Clear scores that turn the biology into a readout you can act on.
The interpretation is built in - you reach a decision in seconds.
Every weight and penalty is written down and version-controlled.
The raw bacteria levels are still there, so you can check the math.

A score, fully shown

Watch one result get built, step by step.

Here's a real Oral Balance Score, worked out in the open. Nothing is hidden - this is the same calculation that runs in the lab, with the research behind each step.

Worked example - Oral Balance Score Balance Test - 16 organisms - saliva DNA test
1

Start with what the bacteria can do, not just who's there

The protective side of the score rewards bacteria that actively support health. The circulation-and-healing system is weighted by the bacteria that do the work - and we look for the narG gene directly, so a result means the function is genuinely present.

// circulation-and-healing (narG-targeted)
NO   = 1.3*Rothia + 1.3*Neisseria + 1.0*Actinomyces + 0.9*Veillonella
COMM = 1.0*S.salivarius + 0.9*S.sanguinis + 0.8*S.mitis
Protective Capacity = 0.70*NO + 0.30*COMM
Hezel & Weitzberg 2015Rosier 2020
2

Weigh the harmful load by how much damage each does - not headcount

Bacteria aren't equal. P. gingivalis and T. denticola carry more weight than a bridging bacterium like F. nucleatum, because the evidence says they do more harm.

PERIO = 1.5*Aa + 1.3*Pg + 1.3*Td + 1.0*Tf + 1.3*Fa + 0.8*Fn-a
Disruptive Pressure = clamp(100 * D_load / 90, 0, 100)   // lower is better
Socransky 1998Darveau 2012
3

Add penalties for risky combinations the raw levels miss

Some combinations are more dangerous together than apart. These penalties capture known biology - each one is a documented interaction, not a fudge factor.

// circulation-and-healing (narG-targeted)
NO   = 1.3*Rothia + 1.3*Neisseria + 1.0*Actinomyces + 0.9*Veillonella
COMM = 1.0*S.salivarius + 0.9*S.sanguinis + 0.8*S.mitis
Protective Capacity = 0.70*NO + 0.30*COMM
Pg + Td together: -6High Aa (DL >= 6): -8Red-complex trio: additional -4
Socransky 2005Holt & Ebersole 2005Hajishengallis 2015
4

Resolve to one number a patient can understand

The base score puts an average-protective, zero-burden patient near 50; penalties pull it down. Higher is always better - by design, so the conversation with the patient stays simple.

OBS = clamp( (Protective - Disruptive + 50) - penalties, 0, 100 )
Hezel & Weitzberg 2015Rosier 2020
83/100

Mild Shift. Strong protective bacteria, low harmful load - but an -8 elevated-Aa penalty flags a localized risk worth watching. The number, the reason, and the next step, all traceable.

A technical edge, in plain terms

We measure what the bacteria can do - not just who's there.

For the circulation-and-healing side of the score, most tests just confirm a bacterium is present: "Rothia is here." But not every strain actually performs the job that matters - turning dietary nitrate into the building blocks for healthy circulation.

OraPath looks for the narG gene - the gene that does the work. Finding it means the helpful function is genuinely active in that patient's mouth.

It's the difference between knowing a tool is in the room and knowing it actually works.

Most tests detect

The species - "Rothia present." Tells you it's there. Doesn't tell you it's working.

OraPath detects

The narG gene - the actual ability to convert nitrate. Confirms the helpful pathway is genuinely active.

It's why the Balance Test can confidently report this function - and why it underpins the Cardiometabolic specialty report for medical providers.

The evidence, named

27

annotated references tie every weight and penalty to published evidence.

Each scoring decision links to the research behind it. Here's a sample - the full annotated list is part of the methodology documentation, kept under version control to clinical-lab standards.

R2
Socransky SS, Haffajee AD, Cugini MA, et al. (1998). Microbial complexes in subgingival plaque. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 25(2), 134-144.Supports the red-complex penalty and the higher weighting of Pg and Td.
R4
Darveau RP, Hajishengallis G, Curtis MA. (2012). Porphyromonas gingivalis as a potential community activist for disease. Journal of Dental Research, 91(9), 816-820.Supports the elevated Pg weighting and treating Pg-containing combinations as especially important.
R8
Hezel MP, Weitzberg E. (2015). The oral microbiome and nitric oxide homeostasis. Free Radical Biology and Medicine.Establishes the circulation pathway (~25% of circulating nitrite) - the basis for the narG / nitric-oxide weighting.
R3
Hajishengallis G. (2015). Periodontitis: from microbial immune subversion to systemic inflammation. Nature Reviews Immunology, 15, 30-44.Supports the Disruptive Pressure model and the multi-bacteria burden penalties.
R3 (PRS)
Holt SC, Ebersole JL. (2005). The red complex: a prototype polybacterial pathogenic consortium. Periodontology 2000, 38, 72-122.Justifies escalating to a high score when red-complex bacteria occur together.

...and 22 more, each tied to a specific scoring decision - patterns, weights, penalties, protective scoring, and cavity separation, all mapped.