Periodontitis is associated with impaired olfactory function: A clinical study.

AIM: To explore the association between periodontitis and olfactory disorders. METHODS: Clinical data were collected from 198 individuals between the ages of 18 and 60 years living in Denmark. The exposure was periodontitis, and the outcome was olfactory function (Threshold, Discrimination, Identification - TDI score), both measured clinically. Covariates included sex, age, education level, income, usage of nasal spray, tongue coating, halitosis, xerostomia, smoking, and history of COVID-19. Structural equation modeling was used to estimate the association between periodontitis and olfactory function. Periodontitis was defined using the AAP/EFP classification and dichotomized into "no" (healthy subjects) and "yes" (Stages I, II, and III). Olfactory function was treated as a one-factor latent variable, including the different olfactory scores. In addition, extra models were performed considering each olfactory component as a separate outcome and the TDI Global Score. RESULTS: The results showed that periodontitis was associated with a lower olfactory function [standardized coefficient (SC) -0.264, 95% CI -0.401, -0.118]. Additionally, periodontitis was also associated with a lower olfactory Threshold (odorant concentration required for detection) (SC -0.207, 95% CI -0.325, -0.089), Discrimination (ability to discriminate between odorants) (SC -0.149, 95% CI -0.270, -0.027), Identification (ability to identify odorants) scores (SC -0.161, 95% CI -0.277, -0.045), and TDI Global Score (SC -0.234, 95% CI -0.370, -0.099). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that periodontitis is associated with olfactory impairment.

Postinfectious conditions challenge disease-specificity of SNOT-22.

PURPOSE: The Sino-Nasal-Outcome-Test 22 (SNOT-22) questionnaire assesses treatment outcome and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). However, given the overlap between CRS and olfaction in terms of nasal function and the definition of CRS, a fundamental question arises: can patients with olfactory dysfunction (OD) stemming from other causes attain SNOT-22 scores similar to those seen in CRS, even in the absence of CRS? Our study aimed to explore whether OD arising from various postinfectious mechanisms challenges the disease-specificity of SNOT-22 for CRS. If so, could focus on scores within specific symptom domains of SNOT-22 prove valuable in distinguishing between different etiologies. METHODS: The study adopted an observational, retrospective cohort design based on prospectively registered patients and related variables using the REDCap platform. 460 patients experiencing OD due to either (1) simple or (2) complex post-COVID-19, (3) postinfectious non-COVID-19, and (4) CRS, were included in the analysis. RESULTS: The study revealed that the total SNOT-22 score lacks disease-specificity for CRS. This is evident, because complex postinfectious mechanisms resulting from COVID-19 can produce similar symptoms in patients. Notably, elevated total scores were primarily driven by high subdomain scores within the "sleep and cognition" domain. CONCLUSIONS: The application of SNOT-22 as a screening tool needs to be approached with caution, as the total score alone does not provide disease-specific insights. A more thorough exploration of the four symptom domains and the identification of distinctive scoring patterns within the clinical context may prove pivotal in effectively differentiating between various underlying causes.

International clinical assessment of smell: An international, cross-sectional survey of current practice in the assessment of olfaction.

OBJECTIVES: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden. Accurate assessment is necessary for good clinical and research practice but is highly dependent on the assessment technique used. Current practice with regards to UK/international clinical assessment is unknown. We aimed to capture current clinical practice, with reference to contemporaneously available guidelines. We further aimed to compare UK to international practice. DESIGN: Anonymous online questionnaire with cross-sectional non-probability sampling. Subgroup analysis according to subspeciality training in rhinology ('rhinologists' and 'non-rhinologists') was performed, with geographical comparisons only made according to subgroup. PARTICIPANTS: ENT surgeons who assess olfaction. RESULTS: Responses were received from 465 clinicians (217 from UK and 17 countries total). Country-specific response rate varied, with the lowest rate being obtained from Japan (1.4%) and highest from Greece (72.5%). Most UK clinicians do not perform psychophysical smell testing during any of the presented clinical scenarios-though rhinologists did so more often than non-rhinologists. The most frequent barriers to testing related to service provision (e.g., time/funding limitations). Whilst there was variability in practice, in general, international respondents performed psychophysical testing more frequently than those from the UK. Approximately 3/4 of all respondents said they would like to receive training in psychophysical smell testing. Patient reported outcome measures were infrequently used in the UK/internationally. More UK respondents performed diagnostic MRI scanning than international respondents. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive UK-based, and only international survey of clinical practice in the assessment of OD. We present recommendations to improve practice, including increased education and funding for psychophysical smell testing. We hope this will promote accurate and reliable olfactory assessment, as is the accepted standard in other sensory systems.

Covid-19 affects taste independent of taste-smell confusions: results from a combined chemosensory home test and online survey from a large global cohort.

People often confuse smell loss with taste loss, so it is unclear how much gustatory function is reduced in patients self-reporting taste loss. Our pre-registered cross-sectional study design included an online survey in 12 languages with instructions for self-administering chemosensory tests with 10 household items. Between June 2020 and March 2021, 10,953 individuals participated. Of these, 5,225 self-reported a respiratory illness and were grouped based on their reported COVID test results: COVID-positive (COVID+, N = 3,356), COVID-negative (COVID-, N = 602), and COVID unknown for those waiting for a test result (COVID?, N = 1,267). The participants who reported no respiratory illness were grouped by symptoms: sudden smell/taste changes (STC, N = 4,445), other symptoms excluding smell or taste changes (OthS, N = 832), and no symptoms (NoS, N = 416). Taste, smell, and oral irritation intensities and self-assessed abilities were rated on visual analog scales. Compared to the NoS group, COVID+ was associated with a 21% reduction in taste (95% confidence interval (CI): 15-28%), 47% in smell (95% CI: 37-56%), and 17% in oral irritation (95% CI: 10-25%) intensity. There were medium to strong correlations between perceived intensities and self-reported abilities (r = 0.84 for smell, r = 0.68 for taste, and r = 0.37 for oral irritation). Our study demonstrates that COVID-19-positive individuals report taste dysfunction when self-tested with stimuli that have little to none olfactory components. Assessing the smell and taste intensity of household items is a promising, cost-effective screening tool that complements self-reports and may help to disentangle taste loss from smell loss. However, it does not replace standardized validated psychophysical tests.

Self-reported periodontitis association with impaired smell and taste: A multicenter survey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between self-reported periodontitis and the senses of taste and smell among employees of one Danish and two American universities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected through a digital survey. A total of 1239 individuals from Aarhus University - Denmark, the University of Iowa, and the University of Florida - USA were included. Self-reported periodontitis was the exposure. The perceived senses of taste and smell were the outcomes and were measured through a visual analog scale (VAS). Self-perceived halitosis was the mediator. Confounders were age, sex, income, education, xerostomia, COVID-19, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes. The total effect was decomposed into direct and indirect using a counterfactual approach. RESULTS: The total effect of periodontitis on an impaired sense of taste was OR 1.56 (95% CI [1.02, 2.09]), of which 23% was mediated by halitosis (OR 1.13; 95% CI [1.03, 1.22]). Additionally, individuals with self-reported periodontitis had a 53% higher chance of having impaired smell (OR 1.53; 95% CI [1.00, 2.04]), with halitosis mediating 21% of the total effect (OR 1.11; 95% CI [1.02, 1.20]). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that periodontitis is associated with distorted senses of taste and smell. Additionally, this association appears to be mediated by halitosis.

Recovery from 3 Years of Daily Olfactory Distortions after Short-Term Treatment with GABA-Analogue.

This case report describes a healthy 47-year-old man with a 3 years history of daily unpleasant olfactory distortions with severe negative effects on the quality of life. The distorted smoke-like smell occurred every day and was most prominent in the evenings resulting in severe discomfort as the patient felt suffocated by the smoke when falling asleep. The distorted smell had no odour triggers and was classified as phantosmia. Patient history, nasal endoscopy, neurological and otolaryngological examination, depression screening, cognitive testing, and CT scan revealed no obvious aetiology, resulting in the diagnosis of idiopathic phantosmia. Quantitate olfactory function was normal. Based on anecdotal evidence in the literature, the patient was treated with a GABA-analogue (pregabalin 50 mg × 3) for 4 weeks. During this treatment, the olfactory distortions completely disappeared for the first time in 3 years and had not reoccurred after 7 months of follow-up. GABA-analogues may be a potential treatment for some of the patients suffering from olfactory distortions. While this constitutes a single case report without controls and phantosmia can disappear spontaneously, there is no proof of causality. However, given the long duration of symptoms, temporal relationship with treatment on the sudden disappearance of phantosmia, and long follow-up without recurrence, this highlights the need for further studies on GABA-analogues as a potential treatment of idiopathic phantosmia. Consequently, larger studies and systematic evaluation of potential effects in different patient groups are warranted before routine treatment with GABA-analogues is advised.

Olfactory Nomenclature: An Orchestrated Effort to Clarify Terms and Definitions of Dysosmia, Anosmia, Hyposmia, Normosmia, Hyperosmia, Olfactory Intolerance, Parosmia, and Phantosmia/Olfactory Hallucination.

BACKGROUND: Definitions are essential for effective communication and discourse, particularly in science. They allow the shared understanding of a thought or idea, generalization of knowledge, and comparison across scientific investigation. The current terms describing olfactory dysfunction are vague and overlapping. SUMMARY: As a group of clinical olfactory researchers, we propose the standardization of the terms "dysosmia," "anosmia," "hyposmia," "normosmia," "hyperosmia," "olfactory intolerance," "parosmia," and "phantosmia" (or "olfactory hallucination") in olfaction-related communication, with specific definitions in this text. KEY MESSAGES: The words included in this paper were determined as those which are most frequently used in the context of olfactory function and dysfunction, in both clinical and research settings. Despite widespread use in publications, however, there still exists some disagreement in the literature regarding the definitions of terms related to olfaction. Multiple overlapping and imprecise terms that are currently in use are confusing and hinder clarity and universal understanding of these concepts. There is a pressing need to have a unified agreement on the definitions of these olfactory terms by researchers working in the field of chemosensory sciences. With the increased interest in olfaction, precise use of these terms will improve the ability to integrate and advance knowledge in this field.

Cortical Atrophy, White Matter Lesions, and Bulb Configuration in Patients with Idiopathic Olfactory Loss and Other Causes of Olfactory Loss.

INTRODUCTION: While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is not included in the current guidelines for diagnosing olfactory disorders in the most recent position paper on olfactory dysfunction, both 1.5T and 3T MRI are commonly used in the diagnostic workup of many patients with olfactory loss. Often, MRI is used to rule out intracranial tumours, but other useful information may be obtained from MRI scans in these patients. The potential of MRI in olfactory loss depends on sufficient knowledge of structural changes in different aetiologies of olfactory loss. We present common clinical MRI findings in olfactory loss and evaluate the usefulness of structural integrity scores in differentiating between aetiologies. METHODS: In this study, we investigated if white matter hyperintensities (WMHs, measured by Fazekas score), global cortical atrophy (GCA), and medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) are more common in patients with idiopathic olfactory loss than in patients with acquired olfactory loss due to other aetiologies. Furthermore, we compared olfactory bulb (OB) configurations in different olfactory loss aetiologies. RESULTS: In 88 patients with olfactory loss, WMHs, GCA, and MTA were not more significant findings on MRI in idiopathic olfactory loss (n = 51) compared with other causes of acquired olfactory loss (Fazekas score p = 0.2977; GCA score p = 0.6748; MTA score p = 0.7851). Bulb configurations differed in patients suffering from post-traumatic olfactory loss and may aid in identifying the underlying aetiology in patients where trauma is among the suspected causes of olfactory loss. CONCLUSION: We recommend that structural MRI with an OB sequence is included in the diagnostic evaluation of olfactory loss with suspected congenital and post-traumatic aetiology and should be considered in idiopathic olfactory loss with suspected central aetiology (e.g., tumour).

Clinical Olfactory Working Group consensus statement on the treatment of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory tract viruses are the second most common cause of olfactory dysfunction. As we learn more about the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with the recognition that olfactory dysfunction is a key symptom of this disease process, there is a greater need than ever for evidence-based management of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD). OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to provide an evidence-based practical guide to the management of PIOD (including post-coronavirus 2019 cases) for both primary care practitioners and hospital specialists. METHODS: A systematic review of the treatment options available for the management of PIOD was performed. The written systematic review was then circulated among the members of the Clinical Olfactory Working Group for their perusal before roundtable expert discussion of the treatment options. The group also undertook a survey to determine their current clinical practice with regard to treatment of PIOD. RESULTS: The search resulted in 467 citations, of which 107 articles were fully reviewed and analyzed for eligibility; 40 citations fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 11 of which were randomized controlled trials. In total, 15 of the articles specifically looked at PIOD whereas the other 25 included other etiologies for olfactory dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: The Clinical Olfactory Working Group members made an overwhelming recommendation for olfactory training; none recommended monocycline antibiotics. The diagnostic role of oral steroids was discussed; some group members were in favor of vitamin A drops. Further research is needed to confirm the place of other therapeutic options.

Recent Smell Loss Is the Best Predictor of COVID-19 Among Individuals With Recent Respiratory Symptoms.

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study, we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n = 4148) or negative (C19-; n = 546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean ± SD, C19+: -82.5 ± 27.2 points; C19-: -59.8 ± 37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC = 0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.

Sustained Chemosensory Dysfunction during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Chemosensory dysfunction (CD) has proven valuable in prediction of COVID-19, as it is a frequent and specific symptom of the disease. The aim of this study was to investigate the duration of CD in patients with sudden subjective olfactory and/or gustatory loss during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The secondary aim was to identify possible prognostic factors for the duration of CD. METHODS: An online baseline questionnaire was designed to assess subjective CD. Three rounds of follow-up questionnaires were sent out to any participants with persistent CD in 6-week intervals, prospectively assessing subjective chemosensory function and extending the follow-up time of this cohort significantly. RESULTS: In total, 467 participants completed the baseline questionnaire. The most significant improvement and recovery of chemosensory function was observed within the first month after the initial loss. Rates became stagnant after about 2 months, and only little improvement and recovery was seen after 2-4 months. After a mean follow-up of 95.9 days (olfactory dysfunction) and 94.0 days (gustatory dysfunction), 86.7% of participants reported gustatory improvement and 82.6% reported olfactory improvement, while 55.0% reported full gustatory recovery and 43.8% reported full olfactory recovery. Female gender was associated with better improvement of gustatory function. High subjective severity of chemosensory loss was associated with lower rates of olfactory and gustatory recovery as well as improvement of olfactory function. Young age was not associated with a better prognosis. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Rates of improvement and recovery of chemosensory function decreased after 2-4 months after initial chemosensory loss, possibly indicating that prolonged and perhaps permanent chemosensory loss may be a complication of SARS-CoV-2 infections. High subjective severity of CD may worsen the prognosis for improvement and recovery of chemosensory function.

More Than Smell-COVID-19 Is Associated With Severe Impairment of Smell, Taste, and Chemesthesis.

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± standard deviation), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.

Re-Test Reliability of Gustatory Testing and Introduction of the Sensitive Taste-Drop-Test.

The sense of taste holds a key integrate role in assessing the flavor of food before swallowing is initiated. If the expectations for taste are not met, palatability and pleasure of the food can decrease. In patients suffering from taste disorders, this may impair appetite and nutritional state. Testing gustatory function can be important for diagnostics and assessment of treatment effects. However, the gustatory tests applied are required to be both sensitive and reliable. In this study, we investigate the re-test validity of popular Taste Strips gustatory test for gustatory screening. Furthermore, we introduce a new sensitive Taste-Drop-Test, which was found to be superior for detecting a more accurate measure of tastant sensitivity.

Odor Familiarity and Identification Abilities in Adolescents.

Olfactory identification abilities in adolescents have been reported inferior compared with adults. Though this seems to be the case when comparing identification abilities using tests validated on-and for-adults, odor familiarity has been hypothesized to affect identification abilities in younger participants. However, this has never been thoroughly tested. The aims of this study were to investigate patterns in odor familiarity differences between adolescents and adults, and to investigate if an adolescent familiarity-based modification of an identification test could lead to similar identification scores in adolescents and adults. In total, 411 adolescent participants and 320 adult participants were included in the study. Odor familiarity ratings were obtained for 125 odors. A modified version of the "Sniffin' Sticks" identification test was created and validated on 72 adolescents based on adolescent familiarity scores. This test was applied to 82 normosmic adults and 167 normosmic adolescents. Results show a lower familiarity for spices and environmental odors, and a higher familiarity for candy odors in adolescents. The identification abilities in adults and adolescents were equal after familiarity-based modification. We conclude that changes in odor familiarity from adolescence to adulthood do not develop evenly for all odors, but are dependent on odor-object category.

Using Cooking Schools to Improve the Pleasure of Food and Cooking in Patients Experiencing Smell Loss.

Smell loss affects around 15-20% of the population, with a major effect on the quality of life. The most common complaint is the impairment of the eating experience, with around 90% of patients reporting this issue. A study conducted at a specialised Taste and Smell Clinic investigated if food and cooking can positively affect the enjoyment of food, subjective cooking skills, and quality of life in patients with smell loss. The 49 participants in the study received a 5-week cooking school course that focused on emphasizing the other senses to regain the enjoyment of food. Participants gained more confidence in cooking, and their quality of life improved significantly. Positively evaluated recipes were adjusted based on feedback and published as free e-books in Danish, German, and English. Eating and cooking are multisensory experiences, and the perception of food depends on the complex interaction of senses and surroundings. If the olfactory input is reduced or absent, both the enjoyment and cooking experience can be negatively affected. Therefore, focusing on food and cooking can have a positive impact on patients with smell loss.

Test-retest reliability and validity of the Importance of Olfaction Questionnaire in Denmark.

While measures to detect psychophysical olfactory ability are a crucial part of clinicians' assessment of potential olfactory loss, it gives no indication of how olfaction is experienced by the patient and these different aspects often deviate substantially. To ensure quality and reproducibility of subjectively reported olfactory experience and significance, the Importance of Olfaction Questionnaire (IO-Q) was introduced around a decade ago, and while initial validations have produced promising results, important aspects remain nearly unexamined. For example, the test-retest reliability has rarely been examined and the difference of online versus pen-and-paper administration remains unexplored. Here, we translated IO-Q to Danish and examined its validity, test-retest reliability and mode of administration. A cohort of 179 younger, Danish participants with a high level of English proficiency took the test twice with varying time in-between. The first test was taken digitally and in English, while the second was taken using pen-and-paper and in Danish. The distribution of scores and the relationship between the IO-Q and subscale scores were nearly identical between tests, indicating little to no influence of language/test modality in the sampled population. The internal consistency was comparable to previously published results. Likewise, an acceptable test-retest reliability was observed for the full IO-Q and slightly lower for subscales. No significant effect of time was found across several weeks. In conclusion, the IO-Q performed satisfactorily in all examinations and could therefore serve as a valuable clinical measure of subjective olfactory experience, and its Danish translation shows highly similar characteristics to the original, English version.

Long-Term COVID-19 Smell and Taste Disorders Differ Significantly from Other Post-Infectious Cases.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is causing a wide range of clinical manifestations. Severe complications and long-lasting sequelae have been identified. Thus, olfactory disorders are reported in up to 86% of cases in mild and moderate COVID-19 infections. We present the first study comparing simple and complex post-COVID-19 cases with matched non-COVID-19 post-infectious smell and taste disorders. METHODS: A total of 328 patients were recruited from the University Clinic for Flavour, Balance and Sleep, Ear-nose-throat Department, Goedstrup Hospital, Denmark. A non-COVID -19 post-infectious population of 148 individuals was identified from the Redcap database, and was matched by duration of smell and taste disorders. Post-COVID-19 patients were divided into 99 patients with simple smell and taste disorders (only suffering from smell and taste disorders after COVID-19); and (81 patients with complex smell and taste disorder plus several other post-COVID-19 complaints). Besides patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) questionnaires and quality of life score (QoL), ear-nose-throat examination, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), orthonasal smell test (Sniffing's sticks), retronasal quick test, and taste screening were performed. RESULTS: Cases with post-COVID-19-related smell and taste disorders deviated from non-COVID-19 post-infectious cases; the patients were younger, had a lower occurrence of anosmia/ageusia, and had higher overall smell test scores. In contrast, patients with post-COVID-19-related smell and taste disorders more frequently complained of distorted senses. Parosmia and phantosmia were more prevalent among patients with simple post-COVID-19 complaints than among complex cases and their QoL were more negatively affected. CONCLUSION: Smell and taste function differ significantly between post-COVID-19 and other non-COVID-19 post-viral cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 133:169-174, 2023.

Frequent reversible causes to deteriorised or lost olfactory or gustatory function.

Change in olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction have gained attention in recent years because of COVID-19. However, these symptoms are common and have numerous different aetiologies, which should not be forgotten. Adequate diagnostic work up and clinical examination is essential. Treatment may include olfactory training, topically applied steroids and perhaps surgery. This review summarises common reversible causes of olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction and current treatment modalities.