***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: OBJECTIVES the aim of this r and omized-controlled clinical trial was to compare the objective and subjective esthetic outcomes of two types of  screwed-retained single-implant crowns .  MATERIAL S AND METHODS participants were r and omly assigned to the test ( all-ceramic ) and control [ porcelain-fused-to-ceramic ( PFM ) ] groups and were seen under investigation at baseline ( B ) , crown insertion ( CI ) , 1-year follow-up ( 1Y ) , and 2-year follow-up ( 2Y ) . Objective parameters were assessed by an intra-oral digital photograph ( 1:1 ratio ) , a study cast , a st and ardized radiograph , periodontal/peri-implant measurements , and question naires were obtained for the subjective parameters . In addition , pink esthetic score ( PES ) and white esthetic score ( WES ) were calculated for both groups . For the subjective evaluation , a visual analogue scale ( VAS ) question naire was used to assess the level of patient satisfaction regarding the esthetic outcome . Then , nine expert clinicians visually inspected and assessed subjective evaluation at the professional level . Statistical analysis was used to compare between groups and investigational appointments . RESULTS twenty patients were included in the study , 10 allocated to the all-ceramic group and 10 to the PFM group . No statistically significant differences were observed for the objective measurements comparing the test and control groups . Minor chipping of the ceramic veneering material was observed in the two patients of control group . The mean difference for all groups comparing objective parameters revealed an increase of papilla height between time points . A slight recession ( 0.26 mm ) of the peri-implant mucosal margin at the implant site was observed between 1Y and 2Y . Mean values for PES and WES were 13.9 and 13.1 for the PFM group and for the all-ceramic group , respectively . These values were not statistically significant . Implant crown volume , outline , translucency , and characterization showed major discrepancies with the contra-lateral natural teeth . As for subjective parameters , VAS patients ' responses regarding their perceptions of the esthetic outcome showed no statistical differences between groups and clinicians ' accuracy scores were 50 % and 47 % for PFM and all-ceramic crowns , respectively . CONCLUSION PFM and all-ceramic single-implant restorations may be indistinguishable from each other regarding the objective /subjective assessment of esthetic integration . The material chosen for fabricating an implant crown per se does not ensure an optimal esthetic outcome if other esthetic parameters are not present The hypothesis of this 5-y r and omized clinical trial was that there would be no significant difference in the satisfaction of edentulous participants with removable complete overdentures attached to 1 or 2 m and ibular implants .  Secondary aims were to test changes in satisfaction between and within the groups from baseline to 5 y and differences between the groups in implant survival and prosthodontic maintenance over 5 y. Each of the 86 participants ( mean age , 67 y ) was r and omly allocated to receive either 1 implant in the midline ( group 1 ) or 2 implants in the canine areas ( group 2 ) attached to a m and ibular overdenture opposing a maxillary complete denture . Satisfaction was self-assessed by participants on a visual analog scale at baseline prior to implants , as well as at 2 mo and 1 , 3 , and 5 y with implant overdentures , whereas implant survival and prosthodontic maintenance were assessed by clinical examination . After 5 y , 29 participants in group 1 and 33 in group 2 were available , with most dropouts due to death . Satisfaction with the implant denture after 5 y was significantly ( P < 0.001 ) higher than at baseline in both groups and remained with no significant difference ( P = 0.32 ) between the groups . No implants failed in group 1 but 5 failed before loading in 4 participants in group 2 . Most participants required maintenance or occasionally denture replacement , and although differences between the groups were not statistically significant , group 1 experienced almost twice as many fractured dentures usually adjacent to the implant attachment . We conclude that there were no significant differences after 5 y in satisfaction or survival of implants with m and ibular overdentures retained by 1 implant or 2 implants . Additional research is required to confirm long-term treatment effectiveness of single-implant dentures and the implication s of prosthetic maintenance with implant overdentures ( Clinical Trials.gov : NCT02117856 ) Speech is often perturbed after placement of maxillary implant-retained prostheses . We tested the hypothesis that the rate of speech errors varies with prosthetic design . Thirty edentulous subjects with m and ibular implant prostheses entered two within-subject crossover trials . Subjects wore maxillary fixed prostheses and removable long-bar overdentures ( Trial 1 ) , or overdentures with and without palates ( Trial 2 ) . Test words from a French language speech battery were recorded after each prosthesis had been worn for two months . The percentages of stops , fricatives , and vowels correctly perceived by lay judges were calculated . Subjects produced a significantly higher percentage of sounds correctly with overdentures than with fixed prostheses . Between-treatment differences were significant for stops and fricatives ( p < 0.01 ) , but not for vowels . There were no significant differences in error rates between the two overdentures . In conclusion , maxillary implant overdentures with and without palates enable patients to produce more intelligible speech than fixed prostheses PURPOSE The aim of this r and omized clinical trial was to compare the relative efficacy of m and ibular overdentures retained by only two implants and a bar attachment with conventional dentures . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Edentulous adults , aged 35 to 65 years , were r and omly assigned to two groups that received either a m and ibular conventional denture ( n = 48 ) or an overdenture supported by two endosseous implants with a connecting bar ( n = 54 ) . All subjects rated their general satisfaction and other features of their original dentures and their new prostheses ( comfort , stability , ability to chew , speech , esthetics , and cleaning ability ) on 100-mm visual analogue scales prior to treatment and 2 months postdelivery . Oral health-related quality of life was also evaluated pre- and posttreatment . RESULTS Multiple regression analysis revealed that the mean general satisfaction was significantly higher in the overdenture group than in the conventional denture group ( P = .0001 ) . Age , gender , marital status , and income were not significantly associated with ratings of general satisfaction . Furthermore , the implant group gave significantly higher ratings on three additional measures of the prostheses ( comfort , stability , and ease of chewing ; P < .05 ) . CONCLUSION A m and ibular two-implant overdenture opposed by a maxillary conventional denture is a more satisfactory treatment than conventional dentures for edentulous middle-aged adults PURPOSE To analyze maintenance service of fixed maxillary prostheses and overdentures based on conventional gold bars or titanium bars and frameworks fabricated with computer-aided design /computer-assisted manufacture ( CAD/CAM ) technology . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Forty-one patients participated ; 16 received an implant overdenture with a gold bar ( gold OD ) , 12 received a CAD/CAM-fabricated implant OD with a titanium bar ( Ti OD ) , and 13 received a  CAD/CAM implant-supported fixed prosthesis ( IFP ) . The bars and frameworks were screw-retained at the implant level . Maintenance service performed during the first 2 years was recorded and compared between the three groups . After this 2-year period , the Oral Health Impact Profile ( OHIP ) was administered . RESULTS For ODs ( gold , Ti ) most service consisted of activation of the matrices . Fractures of matrices and bar extensions occurred only in the gold OD group , and 65 % of these patients exhibited hyperplasia of the peri-implant mucosa . The maintenance rates were 1.24 ( gold OD ) , 1.36 ( Ti OD ) , and 0.98 ( IFP ) . These differences were not statistically significant . Retightening of occlusal screws was not necessary in any group . The probability that a complication occurred in the first year was high ( 60 % to 70 % ) and statistically not different between the three groups . The probability that a second complication occurred was significantly lower for the IFP group versus the gold OD group . The mean OHIP values were 1.7 ( IFP ) , 6.7 ( gold OD ) , and 7.3 ( Ti OD ) ; ratings in the IFP group were significantly better . CONCLUSIONS Maintenance service was typical for implant prostheses in the edentulous maxilla . Direct screw retention at the implant level without abutments had a favorable effect in all groups . A trend toward a reduction in problems was observed with the CAD/CAM superstructures . The OHIP confirmed high satisfaction , but quality of life appeared to be slightly higher with fixed prostheses Dental implants provide patients with restorative options for the edentulous maxilla . Both fixed and removable prostheses can be attached to the edentulous maxilla , but the efficacy of different design s has not been determined . In this two-session within-subject crossover trial we compared  maxillary implant retained fixed prostheses  with  removable implant overdentures  opposed by  m and ibular implant-supported overdentures .  Sixteen patients , who had previously received m and ibular implants , entered the study and received four to six maxillary implants .  After dropouts as a consequence of a lack of osseointegration and general health problems , 13 remained . Of these , five received the removable prosthesis first and eight the fixed prosthesis . After 2 months , the prostheses were exchanged and the second was also worn for 2 months . Psychometric measurements of general satisfaction with the prostheses as well as comfort , ability to speak , stability , esthetics , ease of cleaning and occlusion were obtained once each prosthesis had been worn for 2 months . Chewing ability was assessed for seven types of food . Removable long-bar overdentures received significantly higher ratings of general satisfaction than fixed prostheses ( P = 0.003 ) . Patients also rated their ability to speak and ease of cleaning significantly better with the removable overdentures . Nine patients chose to keep the removable prosthesis and four preferred to keep the fixed prosthesis . The results suggest that maxillary removable overdentures on multiple implants may provide patients with better function than fixed prostheses UNLABELLED Patient-based assessment of oral health outcomes is of growing interest . Measurement of change following clinical intervention is a key property of a health status measure . To date , most of the research on oral health status measurement has focused on construct and discriminant validity of health status measures . OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to assess sensitivity to change of an oral-specific health status measure , the Oral Health Impact Profile ( OHIP ) . METHODS Study subjects were in three groups , namely , edentulous/edentate subjects who requested and received complete implant stabilised oral prostheses ( IG , n=26 ) , edentulous/edentate subjects who requested implants but received conventional dentures ( CDG1 , n=22 ) , and edentulous subjects who had new conventional complete dentures ( CDG2 , n=35 ) . Data were collected pre- and post-operatively using the OHIP and a vali date d denture satisfaction question naire . RESULTS All subjects reported similar low levels of denture satisfaction pre-operatively . Denture problems had a more significant impact on oral health-related quality of life ( OHRQL ) for implant seekers ( IG and CDG1 subjects ) than subjects seeking conventional dentures ( CDG2 ) . Following treatment , significant improvement in satisfaction with oral prostheses and OHRQL was reported by IG and CDG2 subjects ; the level of improvement was more moderate for CDG1 subjects . OHIP change scores were correlated with denture satisfaction change scores . CONCLUSIONS It was concluded that sensitivity to change of the OHIP was good . This property was not improved by using statement weights Although previous studies have demonstrated that implant-supported prostheses are more satisfactory and efficient for edentulous patients than are conventional prostheses , until now no investigation has directly compared different types of implant-supported prostheses . We carried out a within-subject cross-over clinical trial with fixed and long-bar removable implant-supported m and ibular prostheses . Fifteen subjects were r and omly divided into two groups . One group received the fixed prosthesis first , while the other first received the removable . After a two-month adaptation period , psychometric measurements of various aspects of the prostheses and physiological tests of masticatory efficiency were carried out . The prostheses were then changed , and the procedures repeated . At the end of the study , subjects chose the prosthesis they wished to keep . In this paper , we report on the data gathered at this last appointment . Eight subjects chose the fixed ( F group ) , and seven chose the removable ( R group ) . Both groups rated stability and ability to chew with the fixed as significantly better than with the removable . However , the R group rated ease of cleaning as the most important factor governing their decision , followed by esthetics and stability . The F group considered stability to be the most important factor in their decision , followed by chewing ability and ability to clean . There was a tendency for the removable to be chosen by older subjects ( + 50 years ) . These results suggest that patients choose fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses for specific reasons , and that patient attitudes should be considered when the design of a prosthesis is being planned for an individual patient OBJECTIVES Previous research has shown that patients ' evaluations of their prostheses correlate poorly with the clinicians ' assessment s , as well as with intraoral anatomic factors . It has been recommended that research ers conduct more studies that use patient satisfaction as the primary outcome measure in treatment evaluation and that more attention be paid to underst and ing exactly what measures of patient satisfaction represent . In this study , the relationship between patients ' ratings of general satisfaction and their perceptions of different aspects of m and ibular 
    Output:
    
In general , IFCD and IOD showed no significant differences when compared for PROMs , with a slight trend of IFCD being superior to IOD in most included studies .
However , conflicting results were observed in many aspects such as chewing function , phonetics-related function , overall satisfaction and aesthetics .
CONCLUSIONS Inconsistent results were observed in PROMs when comparing IFCD and IOD for fully edentulous patients .