Investigating the prevalence of halitosis and its associated factors amongst the general population of Karachi, Pakistan.

Objective: To assess the prevalence of halitosis among the general population of Karachi, and to identify factors contributing to its occurrence. METHODS: The cross-sectional study was conducted from March to July 2022 in Karachi after approval from the ethics review board of Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, and comprised the adult population of Karachi. Data was collected online using a questionnaire that was piloted before its link was distributed through social media platforms. The questionnaire evaluated the association of demographic features with self-perceived halitosis on the basis of which factors predictive of halitosis were determined. Data was analysed using SPSS 26. RESULTS: Of a total of 342 subjects, 182(53%) were females and 160(47%) were males. There were 141(41$) subjects aged 18-25 years, and 166(48%) were graduates. Overall, 240(70%) subjects reported to have self-perceived halitosis. Age, monthly household income, niswar and tea consumption, irregular use of dental floss and tongue cleaning were associated with higher incidence of halitosis (p<0.05). Carrying water bottle while outside was associated with decreased halitosis (p=0.007). Symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease, sinusitis, asthma, diabetes, hypertension and mental stress were associated with halitosis (p<0.05). Higher monthly household income and daily use of dental floss predicted lower odds of halitosis (p<0.05). Conclusion: Maintaining good oral hygiene and hydration reduced, while comorbid conditions increased the probability of halitosis.

Characteristics of extra-oral halitosis induced by functional constipation: a prospective cohort study.

Characteristics of extra-oral halitosis induced by functional constipation (FC) have never been revealed. To address this, this prospective cohort was conducted with 100 FC patients, who were divided into a halitosis group and a negative group. Organoleptic score (OLS) ⩾ 2 in nose breath was diagnosed as extra-oral halitosis. Concentration of overall volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) measured by Halimeter, concentration of hydrogen sulfide (HS), methanethiol (MT), dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and their total amount measured by OralChroma in nose breath was recorded asC-VSC,C-HS,C-MT,C-DMS andC-sum respectively. We found that 82% (82/100) of the FC patients had extra-oral halitosis. However, only 12.5% (3/82) and 1.22% (1/82) of halitosis group were correctly diagnosed with the current diagnostic threshold ofC-VSC ⩾ 110 parts per billion (ppb) and ⩾150 ppb.C-VSC,C-DMS andC-sum were significantly higher in the halitosis group compared to the negative group (allP< 0.001), with ratios of about 2.2 times, 3.1 times and 2.1 times respectively.C-HS andC-MT were low and not significantly different between the groups. Positive correlations were observed among OLS,C-VSC,C-DMS andC-sum. The area under curve of receiver operating characteristics ofC-VSC, C-DMS andC-sum for predicting FC-induced halitosis was 0.909, 0.9073 and 0.962 respectively, with the threshold values of ⩾36 ppb, ⩾52 ppb and ⩾75 ppb respectively. Therefore, we conclude that: (1) DMS is the primary contributor to FC-induced extra-oral halitosis. (2) OLS, Halimeter and OralChroma are consistent in detecting FC-induced extra-oral halitosis. (3) The diagnostic threshold for Halimeter should be adjusted toC-VSC ⩾ 36 ppb and the diagnostic threshold for OralChroma should be set asC-DMS ⩾ 52 ppb for diagnosing FC-induced extra-oral halitosis.

The assessment of halitosis with a new screening tool in medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the levels of halitosis in patients with Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) and osteoporosis and to suggest a new MRONJ screening method using halitosis measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2019 to April 2023, participants aged 19 years or older without periodontal disease were selected. Seventy-five participants, 25 in each group, were divided into an MRONJ group, an osteoporosis group without MRONJ, and a control group without osteoporosis and not taking osteoporosis drugs or antibiotics. Each participant underwent halitosis assessment twice using an exhaled breath analyzer to measure halitosis twice by blowing a straw for 1 min. Measured concentrations of hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and methyl mercaptan were compared between groups. RESULTS: Data from 22 patients in the MRONJ group, 25 in the osteoporosis group, and 25 in the control group were analyzed. The concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan were significantly higher in the MRONJ group than in the other groups, but the concentrations of hydrogen did not differ between the groups. When comparing the concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan in osteoporosis patients and solid cancer patients in the MRONJ group, there was a significant difference in hydrogen sulfide concentration, but there was no significant difference in methyl mercaptan. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying the level of halitosis can be used to screen for MRONJ in patients taking bisphosphonates, such as patients with osteoporosis, prostate cancer, and breast cancer. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: MRONJ is accompanied by bad breath, and the concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan are associated with MRONJ.

A structural color hydrogel for diagnosis of halitosis and screening of periodontitis.

Oral pathogens can produce volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs), which is the main reason for halitosis and indicates the risk of periodontitis. High-sensitivity detection of exhaled VSCs is urgently desired for promoting the point-of-care testing (POCT) of halitosis and screening of periodontitis. However, current detection methods often require bulky and costly instruments, as well as professional training, making them impractical for widespread detection. Here, a structural color hydrogel for naked-eye detection of exhaled VSCs is presented. VSCs can reduce disulfide bonds within the network, leading to expansion of the hydrogel and thus change of the structural color. A linear detection range of 0-1 ppm with a detection limit of 61 ppb can be achieved, covering the typical VSC concentration in the breath of patients with periodontitis. Furthermore, visual and in situ monitoring of Porphyromonas gingivalis responsible for periodontitis can be realized. By integrating the hydrogels into a sensor array, the oral health conditions of patients with halitosis can be evaluated and distinguished, offering risk assessment of periodontitis. Combined with a smartphone capable of color analysis, POCT of VSCs can be achieved, providing an approach for the monitoring of halitosis and screening of periodontitis.

[Halitosis. Multidisciplinary approach]. / Khalitoz ­ mezhdistsiplinarnaya problema.

Halitosis is a common complaint among patients. Up to 50% of people worldwide claim to have persistent or intermittent bad breath. Often, bad breath not only disrupts the social life of patients, but is also a symptom of systemic diseases. An important step in the treatment of halitosis is the localization of the source and possible cause of the unpleasant smell. Most often, the problem of halitosis is solved by dentists, because intraoral halitosis accounts for up to 90% of all cases, but doctors of many specialties should deal with the differential diagnosis of its causes. This article considers the main causes of halitosis in patients with diseases of various organ systems.

ORGANOLEPTIC AND HALITOMETRIC ASSESSMENTS DO NOT CORRELATE WELL IN INTRA-ORAL HALITOSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard method for diagnosing oral halitosis is the subjective organoleptic measurement. Device-supported methods are also widespread worldwide. The challenges and safety concerns around performing organoleptic measurements during pandemics and the diversity of measuring device alternatives raised our clinical question: which halitometer is the most suitable for diagnosing halitosis? METHODS: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42022320024). The search was performed on March 23, 2022 in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. Adult populations with or without halitosis were included, and patients with systemic diseases were excluded. Organoleptic (subjective) measurement and the device-supported (objective) methods were compared; the primary outcome was the correlation coefficient, and the secondary was the specificity and sensitivity of the devices. QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C were used to evaluate the risk of bias in the studies. Random-effects meta analyses were performed on the outcomes, and the secondary outcomes were plotted on a common ROC plot. RESULTS: A total of 1231 records were found in the 5 databases. After the selection process, 76 articles were eligible for the systematic review, and 14,635 patients were involved in the qualitative analysis. The pooled Spearman's correlation coefficient (c.c.) for sulfide monitors was 0.65; 95% CIs: [0.53-0.74]; I2 = 95%, P < .01. The pooled Spearman's c.c. for portable gas chromatographs was 0.69; 95% CIs: [0.63-0.74]; I2 = 12%, P < .01. The pooled Spearman's c.c. for gas chromatographs was 0.76; 95% CIs: [0.67-0.83]; I2 = 0%, P < .01. DISCUSSION: None of the most commonly used halitometers proved to be significantly superior to the others. Halimeter and OralChroma measurements did not correlate well with the organoleptic level of oral halitosis in adults. Therefore, better halitometers need to be developed as an alternative to organoleptic measurements.

Investigation of volatile sulfur compound level and halitosis in patients with gingivitis and periodontitis.

This study aimed to measure the levels of volatile sulfur compounds and investigate the occurrence of halitosis in patients with gingivitis and periodontitis. Additionally, the incidence rates of gingivitis and periodontitis in patients with halitosis were investigated. Through various statistical analyses, we attempted to determine the relationship between periodontal disease and halitosis. One-hundred-and-four participants (52 females and 52 males, mean age: 46.49 ± 16.03 years) were enrolled in this cross-sectional study, comprising 33 healthy controls, 43 patients with gingivitis, and 28 patients with periodontitis. Gas chromatography was used to measure hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and methyl mercaptan (CH3SH), which are representative VSCs. The VSC cut-off values for diagnosing halitosis were 65.79 ppb for women and 79.94 ppb for men. Total VSC level was significantly higher in the gingivitis than the healthy control group (186.72 ± 374.83 ppb vs. 19.80 ± 40.19 ppb, p = 0.035). There was no significant difference between the gingivitis and periodontitis (153.79 ± 278.51 ppb) groups. H2S level was significantly higher in the gingivitis (100.51 ± 183.69 ppb) and periodontitis (91.57 ± 132.06 ppb) groups than in healthy controls (14.97 ± 31.22 ppb), and CH3SH level was significantly higher in gingivitis group (29.31 ± 59.16 ppb) than in the healthy control (5.73 ± 14.10 ppb) (all p < 0.05). Halitosis was found in 3% of healthy controls and 39.5% and 42.9% of patients with gingivitis and periodontitis patients, respectively, making it significantly higher in the gingivitis and periodontitis groups than the healthy controls (p = 0.005). Conversely, among participants with halitosis, 53.1% had gingivitis, 37.5% had periodontitis, and 90.6 incidence had periodontal disease. Multivariate logistic regression analysis to predict the presence of halitosis, found periodontal disease was a significant predictor of halitosis (OR = 3.607, 95% CI 1.023-12.718, p = 0.046). Considering area under curve value for halitosis, the cut-off value of healthy control (H2S:61.5 ppb, CH3SH:3.5 ppb), gingivitis (H2S:50.0 ppb, CH3SH:6 ppb), and periodontitis (H2S:62.0 ppb, CH3SH:3.5 ppb) were (all p < 0.05). Our results emphasize the close and strong relationship between periodontal disease and halitosis through human clinical evidence based on the high co-occurrence rate of mutual diseases. Additionally, the presence of periodontal disease increased the probability of halitosis by 3.607 times. These results suggest that H2S can be used as a biomarker of halitosis in patients with periodontal disease.

Diagnosis, management and knowledge of halitosis among Polish and Lebanese dentists: Questionnaire-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Halitosis (fetor ex ore, malodor, bad breath) is defined as an unpleasant odor coming from the oral cavity, regardless of the cause: local or systemic. It affects 22-50% of the population worldwide, leading to a significant decrease in the overall quality of life, and can have oral and extra-oral etiologies. There is an increased interest in the management of halitosis. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the patient-dentist communication on halitosis, the dentists' knowledge about the management and etiology of halitosis, and the treatment options used by dentists who practice in Poland and Lebanon. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to both Lebanese and Polish dentists using Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, USA). In total, 205 dentists completed the questionnaire, of which 100 practiced in Poland (group P) and 105 practiced in Lebanon (group L). A multivariate analysis was conducted to determine differences between both groups and to identify parameters that could influence a dentist's management of halitosis. RESULTS: According to the questionnaire, 86% of group P members and 65.7% of group L members reported communicating with patients about halitosis. Regarding the knowledge of halitosis, 78% of dentists in group P and 85.7% of dentists in group L reported that there is a classification for halitosis. A significant majority of dentists in both groups revealed not having any tool to measure halitosis (67.6% and 68% from group P and group L, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the need for improved communication skills in Polish and Lebanese dentists, as well as for education on the subject among dentists in both countries, and for standardization in diagnosis, treatment modalities and management of halitosis.

Accuracy of two methods to detect the presence of halitosis: the volatile sulfur compounds concentration in the mouth air and the information from a close person.

This study aimed to analyze the accuracy of two methods for detecting halitosis, the organoleptic assessment by a trained professional (OA) with volatile sulfur compounds (VSC) measurement via Halimeter® (Interscan Corporation) and information obtained from a close person (ICP). Participants were patients and companions who visited a university hospital over one year period to perform digestive endoscopy. A total of 138 participants were included in the VSC test, whose 115 were also included in the ICP test. ROC curves were constructed to establish the best VSC cut-off points. The prevalence of halitosis was 12% (95%CI: 7% to 18%) and 9% (95%CI 3% to 14%) for the OA and ICP, respectively. At the cut-off point >80 parts per billion (ppb) VSC, the prevalence of halitosis was 18% (95%CI: 12% to 25%). At the cut-off point >65 ppb VSC, sensitivity and specificity were 94% and 76%, respectively. At the cut-off point >140 ppb, sensitivity was 47% and specificity 96%. For the ICP, sensitivity was 14% and specificity 92%. VSC presents high sensitivity at the cut-off point of >65 ppb and high specificity at the cut-off point of >140 ppb. ICP had high specificity, but low sensitivity. The OA can express either occasional or chronic bad breath, whereas the ICP can be a potential instrument to detect chronic halitosis.

Comparative study between photodynamic therapy and the use of probiotics in the reduction of halitosis in mouth breathing children: Study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Halitosis is a term that defines any odor or foul smell the emanates from the oral cavity, the origin of which may be local or systemic. One of the causes of local or oral halitosis is low salivary flow and dry mouth, which is also one of the complaints of individuals with the mouth-breathing habit. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) and the use of probiotics for the treatment of halitosis in mouth-breathing children. METHODS: Fifty-two children between 7 and 12 years of age with a diagnosis of mouth breathing and halitosis determined through an interview and clinical examination will be selected. The participants will be divided into 4 groups: Group 1-treatment with brushing, dental floss and tongue scraper; Group 2-brushing, dental floss and aPDT applied to the dorsum and middle third of the tongue; Group 3-brushing, dental floss and probiotics; Group 4-brushing, dental floss, aPDT and probiotics. The use of a breath meter and microbiological analysis of the tongue coating will be performed before, immediately after treatment and 7 days after treatment. The quantitative analysis will involve counts of colony-forming bacteria per milliliter and real-time polymerase chain reaction. The normality of the data will be determined using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Parametric data will be submitted to analysis of variance and nonparametric data will be compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The results of each treatment in the different periods of the study will be compared using the Wilcoxon test. DISCUSSION: Due to the low level of evidence, studies are needed to determine whether treatment with aPDT using annatto as the photosensitizer and blue led as the light source is effective at diminishing halitosis in mouth-breathing children.

Prevalence and associated factors of self-reported halitosis among institutionalized adolescents: Cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and associated factors of self-reported halitosis in institutionalized adolescents in a city in southern Brazil. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved male institutionalized adolescents, aged 15-19 years old, at the Socio-Educational Assistance Center in the city of Passo Fundo, Brazil. Data collection was performed by a research team composed of two interviewers, two clinical examiners of oral health and two examiners of salivary flow. A structured questionnaire was applied, which included demographical, socioeconomical, general health behaviour, presence of health problems and oral health self-perception variables. Decayed, Missing, Filled Index was used for the clinical examination. The salivary flow collection was performed using the mechanically stimulated total saliva method, in which only the liquid component was measured. RESULTS: The prevalence of self-reported halitosis in this sample was 51.5% (n = 35). In the final multivariate analysis, halitosis was significantly associated with the non-white racial group (prevalence ratio [RP]:1.703; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]:1.101-2.634), use of crack (RP:1.857; 95%CI:1.270-2.714) and number of decayed teeth (PR: 1.123; 95%CI:1.008-1.252). The use of alcohol and access to dental care in the last 12 months were not significantly associated with self-reported halitosis. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that non-white and crack-user youngsters had a high occurrence of self-reported halitosis. Higher rates of dental caries are also associated with halitosis.

[Metabolomics study on the difference of tongue coating metabolites between patients with intra-oral halitosis and healthy individual].

PURPOSE: To analyze the difference of metabolites of tongue coating between patients with intra-oral halitosis and healthy individuals by untargeted metabolomics, and to explore significant differences in metabolites of intra-oral halitosis as biomarkers. METHODS: The untargeted metabolomics of tongue coating samples from 12 patients with intra-oral halitosis and 12 healthy individuals were studied by liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry combined with principal component analysis and orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis. The value of variable importance in projection ＞1 and P＜0.05 of Student's t test in the orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis model were used as the criteria to screen and determine the differential metabolites. RESULTS: There were differences in the metabolites of tongue coating between patients with intra-oral halitosis and healthy individuals, and 11 different metabolites were identified. They were valyl-arginine, glycine-phenylalanine, tryptophyl-proline, deoxyadenosine, 4,5-dihydroniveusin A, N-acetyl-DL-tryptophan, paramethasone acetate, cyclopentanol, [(2-hexylcyclopentylidene) amino]thiourea, L-pipecolic acid and taurine. In the intra-oral halitosis group, the expressions of Glycine-phenylalanine and N-acetyl-DL-tryptophan were significantly up-regulated, while the expressions of taurine were significantly down-regulated. CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the metabolites of tongue coating between patients with intra-oral halitosis and healthy individuals. The differential metabolites with diagnostic value may be used as diagnostic markers of intra-oral halitosis.

Concerning perceived and clinically-measured levels of halitosis.

The different types of self-reported halitosis complaints include those where one feels that one's breath smells bad, where one feels that one has bad breath because of the attitudes of others, and where others have pointed out the presence of bad breath. The results of previous studies comparing the objective and subjectives measures of halitosis are inconsistent, and few studies have used gas chromatography (GC) to measure halitosis in a large sample. This study aimed to examine the objectively measured halitosis levels based on the reasons individuals are concerned about halitosis. We included 2063 patients who visited the halitosis clinic at a university dental hospital. Halitosis was assessed using GC, self-administered questionnaires, and oral examinations. Levels of volatile sulphur compounds (VSCs; H2S, CH3SH, and (CH3)2S) were set as objective measures of halitosis. Patients were grouped based on their answers to 'What made you concerned about bad breath?' into groups: 'self-perceived,' 'attitudes of others,' 'told by others,' and other reasons. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to examine factors associated with VSCs and objective halitosis levels. Age, sex, oral health status, smoking, drinking, and breakfast habits were used as confounders. Patients who answered 'told by others' (n= 691, 33.5%) showed the highest VSCs. Individuals whose halitosis was pointed out by others had higher objectively measured halitosis levels, while those concerned about the attitudes of others or perceived their own halitosis had lower objectively measured halitosis levels. These results suggest that the objective level of halitosis can differ on the basis of the reason underlying an individual's concern about their bad breath. Categorizing halitosis complaints and comparing them with objective halitosis levels may help reduce the anxiety of those who are concerned about halitosis and confirm the need for intervention for those with objective halitosis.

Criticism of the organoleptic examination for the diagnosis of oral halitosis.

Due to the fact that only a human can judge the objectionability of an odor, organoleptic examination (sniffing and scoring oral odor) was used as a reference standard of oral halitosis measurement. However, there are several problems that make the diagnostic value of organoleptic examination questionable. There is no universally accepted, precise definition, standardization or calibration in organoleptic examination, including scoring, scaling or safety protocols. Standardization, calibration, reproducibility, reliability, objectivity, specificity, accuracy and sensitivity of organoleptic measurements are doubtful. It is extremely subjective, emotional, instinctive, intuitive, speculative, hedonic and highly flexible. In addition, it is found to be repulsive, primitive and moreover even shame is experienced by patients and examiners. Non-standard protocols on pre-measurement, scoring, scaling, and training processes may cause misinterpretation or misdiagnosis since it depends on the examiner's emotional mood, gender, ethnicity, odor detection spectrum, threshold and even climatic conditions. It is not the gold standard, and not even considered standard. It is difficult to recognize, identify or focus on a particular gas among thousands in the breath. Organoleptic examination may not be necessary due to it not being a good diagnostic tool for halitosis. There may be an infection risk for sniffers or patients. Moreover, female examiners may have disadvantages in olfactory accuracy during organoleptic examination since menstruation, pregnancy and menopause may alter their odor sensation. In addition, age limits the reliability of examiners due to age-related smell loss. According to the psychophysics laws, the human nose can recognize odors logarithmically. There is no reason to think that scoring the oral malodor by sniffing the mouth of the patients obtains sufficient evidence for the diagnosis of halitosis. Portable multi-gas detectors and electronic noses, can be suggested as an alternative instead of sniffing patients. This is the first paper in the literature to criticize organoleptic examination, revalue its health risks and inconsistencies in assessment protocols.

Prevalence of halitosis among young adults in Dunedin, New Zealand.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of halitosis in young adults. METHODS: Young adults (n = 372; mean age = 21.0 ± 2.6 years old, range = 18-30 years) in Dunedin, New Zealand, were recruited into the cross sectional study after providing informed consent. The prevalence of halitosis was determined using both objective measurements (parts per billion [ppb] volatile sulphur compounds [VSCs] in the exhaled air) and subjective measurements (self-reported halitosis questionnaire, tongue coating index, and organoleptic assessment). RESULTS: Volatile sulphur compounds measurements indicated that the prevalence of halitosis (values ≥140 ppb) was 31.2%; 25.6% of participants self-reported halitosis. The organoleptic assessment revealed that 14.3% of the participants had a score of ≥2. A positive correlation was found between the VSC measurements and organoleptic assessment (p < 0.05). No significant relationship was found between self-reported halitosis and either organoleptic assessment or VSC measurements. Self-reported dry mouth, smoking, oral hygiene index, DMFT index, and tongue coating score were significantly associated with the organoleptic assessment (p < 0.05). The self-reported dry mouth, mouth breathing and tongue coating score were significantly associated with the VSC scores (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Halitosis, as represented by VSC, was found in 31.2% of the participants. VSC scores and organoleptic assessment were positively correlated. There was no significant relationship between self-reported halitosis and either organoleptic assessment or VSC measurements.

Etiology of halitosis in pediatric dentistry.

Halitosis has become a major concern, as it is the third most common reason for dental visits and affects individuals across all ages, genders, and ethnicities. Only a few limited studies have explored the prevalence and etiology of halitosis in the pediatric population. Therefore, the aim of this review was to identify the etiological factors influencing the widespread occurrence of halitosis in pediatric dentistry in order to guide therapy based on the identified causes, thereby improving children's quality of life. The etiology of halitosis is multifactorial; however, in most cases, halitosis is associated with the oral cavity. It can also be related to otorhinolaryngological and respiratory or even gastric diseases. Although halitosis in children is widely associated with poor oral hygiene, we cannot rule out other possible causes, such as otorhinolaryngological and respiratory causes.

A Narrative Review of the Diagnosis, Etiology, and Treatment of Halitosis Over the Past Three Decades.

Although the term "halitosis" was first coined in 1874, people have become increasingly aware of this problem more recently during the COVID-19 pandemic due to extensive wearing of protective masks. In fact, following dental caries and periodontal disease, halitosis is the third most prevalent reason for patients going to the dentist. Due to multifactorial etiology, the diagnosis of halitosis requires a rigorous health/dental/social history, a clinical examination, and measurements. The treatment ranges from the use of dentifrices, mouthwashes, tongue scraping, and masking products, and more recently includes photodynamic therapy, probiotics, and ozone. The purpose of this narrative review was to examine the published literature concerning halitosis over the past 30 years and discuss the diagnosis, etiology, and treatment of the disease.

Changes in halitosis value before and after Helicobacter pylori eradication: A single-institutional prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although patients report either improved or worsened halitosis after Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy, such complaints are subjective. Only a few studies have objectively evaluated reports of changes in halitosis after H. pylori eradication; thus, this study aimed to investigate these changes after a successful H. pylori eradication. METHODS: Between February 2015 and October 2018, 56 347 patients visited the clinic. Informed consent for participation in this study was obtained from 164 patients scheduled to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy due to halitosis. Of the 91 patients with H. pylori infection, the halitosis values were evaluated as Refres breath (RB) values using a Total Gas Detector™ System and compared before and after successful H. pylori eradication, as confirmed with urea breath testing. RESULTS: Among the 91 patients treated, 77 patients were successfully eradicated of H. pylori and had their Refres values measured (21 men and 56 women; mean age, 64.2 ± 11.5 years, including 10 smokers); among these 77 patients, 27 showed RB values of > 60. Their RB values significantly improved from 73.5 Â (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.1-82.9) to 59.4 Â (95% CI, 50.0-68.8) (P = 0.038). Of the 30 patients who could be followed up for > 2 years after successful H. pylori eradication, 8 with an RB value ≥ 60 showed significant RB value improvements from 77.9 Â (95% CI, 59.4-96.4) to 30.1 Â (95% CI, 11.6-48.6) (P = 0.0016). CONCLUSIONS: Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy could improve halitosis, and such improvement could be maintained even 2 years after successful eradication.

Effect of Photodynamic Therapy on Halitosis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of aPDT for the treatment of halitosis. METHODS: Search strategies were conducted in October 2021 without language or data restrictions, on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS and BBO, as well as a manual search. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with parallel design were considered for inclusion, assessing individuals (adolescents and adults) with a clinical diagnosis of halitosis treated with photodynamic therapy (aPDT). Primary outcomes assessed were halitosis measurements, adverse events and quality of life. The risk of bias for each included study was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of the body of the evidence was assessed with the GRADe approach. RESULTS: Six RCTs (total of 225 participants) were included and due to clinical diversities it was not possible to group the outcome data in meta-analyses. Based on very low-certainty evidence (GRADE) the results showed that, when compared to tongue scraper, aPDT seems to promote a little to no difference in reducing halitosis and in the microbiological analysis. No adverse events were reported. Considering aPDT combined with tongue scraper, better outcome results were observed when compared to tongue scraper alone. CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low-certainty evidence, the findings of this review are uncertain about the effects of aPDT for halitosis control. Further RCTs with higher number of participants and long term assessments need to be conducted to support the use of this intervention. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (number: CRD42020215319) on 19 November 2020-retrospectively registered.