OBJECTIVE: It is crucial to understand how individuals perceive the impact of oral disorders and the treatment associated with or received for those disorders on their quality of life. A relatively new but quickly spreading concept of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) that notably affects three fields, clinical dental practice, dental research, and dental education makes it feasible to figure out the relationship between oral health and its impact on the quality of life of an individual. OHRQoL can be measured in various ways; the most well-liked method uses a multiple-item questionnaire. There haven\'t been any prior attempts to compare the effects of various invasive and non-invasive dental therapies on OHRQoL, even though few studies have been conducted to evaluate the OHRQoL among patients undergoing independent dental procedures. Such a comparison would aid in our understanding of not only how various dental conditions affect OHRQoL, but also whether or not a patient\'s OHRQoL has improved as a result of various therapies for these diseases.
METHODS: A longitudinal study was conducted on patients receiving invasive and non-invasive dental treatment at Teerthanker Mahaveer Dental College and Research Centre, Moradabad. A two-part questionnaire, the first part of which consists of questions related to the demographic details of the patient and the second part consisting of a set of 14 questions of the oral health impact profile (OHIP)-14 for assessing the OHRQoL, was used in the study. Patients\' baseline OHRQoL was assessed before the commencement of any treatment by the interview method and follow-up OHRQoL was assessed three days, seven days, one month, and six months post-treatment telephonically. The OHIP-14 contains 14 items on the frequency of adverse impacts caused by oral conditions and the patients were asked to rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale as 0=never; 1=hardly ever; 2=occasionally; 3=fairly often; 4=very often.
RESULTS: The results obtained after compiling and analyzing the data from a total sample of 400 indicate that the mean difference in the OHIP score at different time intervals between the groups who undertook invasive and non-invasive treatment was significant as the p-value was less than 0.05. In addition, it was observed that the mean difference at baseline was statistically significant in the invasive and non-invasive groups as the p-value is less than 0.05. At the domain level, the mean score at each domain was higher in the invasive group as compared to the non-invasive treatment group after three days and seven days of treatment. The mean difference between the group treated with invasive treatment on day three and the group treated with non-invasive treatment on day seven was statistically significant as the p-value is less than 0.05. The mean score was high in the invasive group as compared to the non-invasive group after one month and six months of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study was conducted to assess dental treatment\'s impact on oral health-related quality of life in patients attending Teerthanker Mahaveer Dental College and Research Centre, Moradabad. Results from this study indicated that both types of treatments either invasive or non-invasive have significantly influenced the OHRQoL. Post-treatment OHRQoL improved at different intervals after receiving either treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine if hemodialysis patients who have undergone an invasive dental treatment are at risk of developing infective endocarditis.
METHODS: This study was a cohort case-control design and used secondary data collected from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. The case group and the control group were each comprised of 19,602 hemodialysis patients. The control group was matched for four variables: age, gender, a medical history of diabetes mellitus, and a cerebrovascular event. After matching, the case group and the control group were each comprised of 19,602 hemodialysis patients. Cox regression analysis determined hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Patients were followed up at 1 month and 3 months after receiving invasive dental treatment. The results showed the cohort case-control hazard ratio was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.49, 1.57) 1 month after receiving invasive dental treatment. Three months after receiving IDT, the cohort case-control hazard ratio was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.71, 1.52). Hazard ratios did not differ significantly between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Hemodialysis patients who received invasive dental treatment had no greater risk of developing infective endocarditis than matched control patients. The results of this study should alleviate concerns for hemodialysis patients and dentists about invasive dental treatment procedures. We recommend hemodialysis patients undergo invasive dental treatment when needed.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that invasive dental treatment did not increase their risk of developing infective endocarditis. Hemodialysis patients in need of an invasive dental procedure should be encouraged to undergo treatment if the dentist deems it necessary.