## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Domains** & **Pre-Treatment Score** & **Post Treatment Score** & **Comparison** \\  & **Mean (SD)** & **Mean (SD)** & **(_p-Value)** \\ \hline Functional limitation (FL) & 12.80 \(\pm\) 4.11 & 10.87 \(\pm\) 3.83 & \textless{}0.05 * \\ \hline Physical pain (P1) & 12.75 \(\pm\) 3.06 & 10.08 \(\pm\) 3.70 & \textless{}0.05 * \\ \hline Psychological discomfort (P2) & 5.44 \(\pm\) 2.0 & 4.11\(\pm\) 1.32 & \textless{}0.05 * \\ \hline Physical disability (D1) & 9.61\(\pm\) 3.05 & 8.03 \(\pm\) 2.17 & \textless{}0.05 * \\ \hline Psychological disability (D2) & 4.53 \(\pm\) 1.80 & 4.38 \(\pm\) 2.40 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\ \hline Social disability (D3) & 4.60 \(\pm\) 1.37 & 5.08 \(\pm\) 1.15 & \textless{}0.05 * \\ \hline Handicap (H) & 3.36 \(\pm\) 2.51 & 3.05 \(\pm\) 2.41 & \textgreater{}0.05 \\ \hline Total & 53.09 \(\pm\) 2.70 & 45.6 \(\pm\) 2.42 & \textless{}0.05 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p<\) 0.05 shows significant difference; SD: standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Pre- and post-treatment scores of OHIP-EDENT domains. not allow for a fair comparison with our study. Further researches on QoL assessment and PBM application are necessary to substantiate the outcome of this study. In this study, PBM was applied at 15, 30, and 60 days on palatal tissue and intaglio denture surfaces with a wavelength of 660 nm, an energy density of 28 J/cm\({}^{2}\), and a laser output of 100 W to combat DS. The modality adopted in the present study has been used by several investigators in the past. [PERSON] et al. [25] analyzed the effectiveness of two different wavelengths of PBM (685 and 830 nm). The two wavelengths were compared with a placebo treatment and miconazole. The outcome revealed that the colony count of _Candida albicans_ in the culture medium was reduced significantly with both wavelengths of the laser. The justification for evaluating various wavelengths was based on a study by [PERSON] et al. [26], in which PBM with wavelengths of 630, 660, 810, and 905 was analyzed on different microbial species. The results showed that the bacterial species examined showed variability in terms of sensitivity to PBM irradiation, and this variation was dependent on the course of time and radiation energy applied. Studies evaluating oral health-related quality of life post-PBM are limited, and there is a need to clarify the impact of this protocol on satisfaction and quality of life. Additionally, [PERSON] et al. reported that low-level laser therapy applied at a 660 nm wavelength provided an inhibition of bacterial growth when compared with an 810 nm wavelength application of lasers. However. [PERSON] et al. proposed that a higher wavelength of PBM provides a better effect against DS caused by fungi compared to bacteria. They used laser therapy at 685 and 830 nm against _Candida albicans_. The high wavelength requirement might have been due to the biological characteristic of _Candida albicans_, which is different from bacterial species. The fungal cell wall has a thick layer of beta-glucan and chitin that provides a permeability barrier against laser rays [25]. [PERSON] et al. [27] emphasize the energy level of the laser, and they applied PDT on _Candida albicans_ with 685 and 830 nm wavelengths at different energy levels (3, 5, 10, and 20 J). In this study, the energy density level was kept at 28 J/cm\({}^{2}\). Their outcome was similar to our study and the study by [PERSON] et al. [25]. The optimum PBM efficacy was obtained in their study with an energy level of 10 J. The study described that the antifungal activity of PBM was linked with fluctuations in the intracellular fluid levels within an organism, which cause disruption to the cell membranes. It was suggested that the application of PBM at various wavelengths was absorbed by a special pigment (chromophores) in fungi, which causes stress and growth inhibition.