O4 An inventory study on a randomized group of 1000 patients visiting a multidisciplinary breath odor clinic at a university hospital

Abstract

In 1994 the first European multidisciplinary (periodontology, ENT, psychiatry and occasionally gastro‐enterology) outpatient clinic was initiated at the University Hospital in Leuven, Belgium. The first 1000 patient files on the alphabetical list were analysed. It surprisingly consisted of 499 men and 501 women (2–90 years old, mean 38). The majority consulted spontaneously (69%), others were referred by their house doctor (14%), general dentist (6%) or medical/oral specialists (11%). One‐third had complaints since more than 5 years. Two‐thirds were informed by confidents or colleagues about their breath odor while they were unaware of it, 15% of the patients noticed it themselves and 18% were informed by others besides noticing it themselves. Not a single patient was alcoholic but 14% were tobacco addicts. In 83.4% of the patients there was an oral problem. Mostly tongue coating or/and periodontitis, was evident. In 3.6% it was a combination of ENT/intra‐oral causes. An ENT or gastro‐enterologic cause was detected in 3.1 and 1.3% respectively. ENT causes involved postnasal drip, tonsillitis, sinusitis, rhinitis. Only 1% had a metabolic or hormonal problem. The latter regularly also had tongue coating or periodontitis, but the elimination of these causes did not solve the entire problem. On the other hand in 7.6% of the patients no physical cause could be detected, while psychological/psychiatric problems were clearly identified. After the first multidisciplinary examination and treatment initiation/instructions, a control visit was proposed 2–6 months later. All patients were meanwhile referred for follow‐up to their general dentist or periodontologist or house doctor/medical specialist. Nearly 60% of the patients did not show up at the second appointment. When a sample was contacted by telephone (n = 40) all declared they were cured. 10% of the patients needed 3 appointments or more. From the 31% of the patients who came back for their control visit, 68.5% had experienced a (clear‐cut) improvement, and 22.7% noticed a slight to strong improvement. The patients who did not report any improvement (8.8%) were nearly all identified as having psychological or psychiatric traits.