***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 INTRODUCTION Up-to- date studies comparing endodontic treatment versus implant-supported prosthesis have shown similar clinical outcome and survival rates . However , no data are available comparing both treatment modalities based on the patient 's perception of quality of life . This study was design ed to qualitatively describe and compare the quality of life of patients with restored , single endodontically treated teeth versus patients with single implant-supported fixed prostheses . METHODS Forty-eight patients agreed to participate in the study ( n = 24 from each treatment modality ) . Of those , 37 actually participated in the study : 17 were endodontically treated and 20 had an implant-supported prosthesis . Patients in each of the two groups were r and omly selected from the Graduate Endodontics and Graduate Periodontics Departments , respectively . Six focus group discussion s ( n = 3 per treatment group ) were held and audio-recorded for subsequent thematic analysis . Data were analyzed to identify common themes within each category and compared to assess any differences in quality of life between the two treatments . Additionally , a quality of life survey , the shortened version of the Oral Health Impact Profile ( OHIP-14 ) , was given before the discussion group and the responses analyzed . RESULTS The results obtained from this study show similar overall OHIP scores and show a high rate of satisfaction with both treatment modalities . Content analysis of the discussion groups revealed several themes and subthemes . The major themes were importance of overall health , financial implication s of the treatments , perception of the treatments and its outcomes , time since treatment , and follow-up dental visits . CONCLUSIONS The results help identify patients ' perception and concerns with each treatment modality and assist the clinician and patient in the selection of an optimal treatment for their given situation . In addition to the prognosis and outcomes , clinicians should consider patients ' perceptions and preferences as well as the influence each therapy may have on their quality of life , both short- and long-term . Overall , all the participants in this study were pleased with the treatment received and expressed a clear message to save their natural dentition whenever possible OBJECTIVE To evaluate and compare marginal bone loss around mini-implants  supporting maxillary overdentures with either partial or full palatal coverage . METHOD AND MATERIAL S Nineteen edentulous patients complaining of retention problems involving their maxillary dentures were r and omly allocated in two groups . Group I ( n = 10 ) received maxillary dentures with full palatal coverage , and group II ( n = 9 ) received maxillary dentures with partial palatal coverage . In total , 114 mini-implants ( 6 per patient ) were inserted using the nonsubmerged flapless surgical approach and loaded immediately with maxillary overdentures . Each implant was evaluated at the time of initial prosthetic loading and at 6 , 12 , and 24 months thereafter . Radiographic evaluation was performed in terms of vertical and horizontal bone loss . Implant mobility ( via Periotest values ) was measured using a Periotest device , and patient satisfaction was evaluated with a visual analog scale . The cumulative survival rate was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis . RESULTS After 2 years , the mean vertical bone loss in groups I and II was 5.38 and 6.29 mm , respectively , while the mean horizontal bone loss in groups I and II was 1.52 and 1.93 mm , respectively . Most bone resorption occurred within 6 months after overdenture insertion in both groups . Group II recorded significant higher vertical bone loss and Periotest values than group I at all observation times . The cumulative survival rates of the mini-implants were 78.4 % and 53.8 % for groups I and II , respectively . All patients were satisfied with their maxillary overdentures in terms of retention and chewing ability . CONCLUSION Rehabilitation of edentulous maxillae with unsplinted mini-implants supporting overdentures and in particular with a combination of partial palatal coverage is not recommended because of excessive marginal bone resorption and the higher failure rate of mini-implants than was expected Background Very few studies on the impact of implant therapy on Oral Health Related Quality of Life ( OHRQoL ) in partially edentulous patients have been published . Aim This study aim ed at analysing the improvement of OHRQoL of patients who underwent dental implant treatment using the “ functional ” , “ psychosocial ” and “ pain and discomfort ” categories of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index ( GOHAI ) . Methods Within a prospect i ve cohort of patients rehabilitated with Straumann dental implants , the OHRQoL of 176 patients ( 104 women and 72 men ) was assessed using the GOHAI question naire , at two different times , before and after implant placement . The degree of oral treatment was categorised into three classes : “ Single Tooth Implant ” ( n = 77 ) , “ Fixed Partial Denture ” ( n = 75 ) , “ Fixed or Retained Full Prostheses ” ( n = 24 ) . The participants ’ characteristics ( gender , age , tobacco habits , periodontal treatment , time between both evaluations ) were assessed . Results Before treatment , the GOHAI score was lower for participants with fewer teeth ( F = 19 , P < 0.001 ) . After treatment , no difference was observed between participants ; significant improvements were observed in the GOHAI scores obtained ( repeated measures , analysis , ( F = 177 , P < 0.001 ) ) for each of the GOHAI fields studied ( functional , psychosocial and pain & discomfort ) , regardless of the degree of treatment . The best improvement was observed in patients who needed complete treatment ( P < 0.001 ) . The presence of preliminary periodontal treatment , tobacco habits , age and gender of the participants did not have a significant impact on OHRQoL. Changing the time between the two evaluations ( before and after treatment ) had no impact on the changes in the GOHAI score . Conclusions Implants enhanced the OHRQoL of participants that needed oral treatment OBJECTIVES To study  patient satisfaction  and masticatory efficiency of single implant-retained m and ibular overdentures using the stud and magnetic attachments in a r and omized clinical trial with a crossover design . METHODS Patients received a single implant placed in the midline of the m and ible and either a stud ( Locator ) or a magnetic ( Magfit ) attachment , assigned at r and om . Patient satisfaction , including patient comfort , speech , chewing ability and retention , and masticatory efficiency measured by chewing peanuts , were assessed before and 3 months after attachment insertion . Patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency were evaluated again 3 months after insertion of the alternate attachment bodies . The outcomes were compared before and after insertion of the attachments and between the two types of attachments using Wilcoxon signed rank tests . RESULTS Patient overall satisfaction , comfort , speech , chewing ability , and retention improved significantly after insertion of both types of attachment bodies ( p<0.05 ) . Masticatory efficiencies also increased in both the Locator and the Magfit groups ( p<0.05 ) . There were no statistically significant differences in patient overall satisfaction , comfort , speech , and retention between the two types of attachments ( p>0.05 ) . The Locator attachments performed better in perceived chewing ability than the Magfit ( p<0.05 ) , but there was no statistically significant difference in masticatory efficiency between the two attachment types ( p>0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS Clinical outcomes were significantly improved in single implant-retained m and ibular overdentures using either the Locator or the Magfit magnetic attachments . There was no difference in masticatory efficiency between the two attachment types STATEMENT OF PROBLEM There is a widespread belief that maxillary overdenture prostheses are associated with a higher frequency of complications and require more maintenance than fixed implant prostheses . PURPOSE This prospect i ve clinical study compared the treatment outcomes of fixed and removable implant-supported restorations in the edentulous maxilla with the main emphasis on the clinician 's point of view . MATERIAL AND METHODS Ten patients were treated with fixed screw-retained implant prostheses ( group 1 ) , and 10 patients were treated with removable implant-supported overdentures ( group 2 ) in the edentulous maxilla . Recall was scheduled at 6-month intervals to investigate the prosthodontic treatment outcomes , including implant survival , prosthesis time until retreatment , and maintenance issues . Clinical parameters gingival index ( GI ) , plaque index ( PI ) , the clinical attachment level , and radiographic marginal bone levels measured , along with any biologic and mechanical complications were recorded . RESULTS Patients were followed over a mean period of 39 months ( SD=7 ; group 1 ) and 27 months ( SD=10 ; group 2 ) after implant placement . Cumulative implant survival was 97.6 % for group 1 and 94.4 % for group 2 after an 18-month observation period . The mean time until retreatment after prostheses insertion was 23.4 months for group 1 and 19.8 months for group 2 ( n.s . ) . In both groups , the increase over time in the radiographically investigated bone level was found to be significant . The indices given for the mucosal health and oral hygiene status ( GI and PI ) were highly correlated in both groups at each recall appointment , but no significant differences were found between groups 1 and 2 . CONCLUSION In groups 1 and 2 , comparable prosthodontic treatment outcomes were achieved . The majority of mechanical complications could be managed chairside during recall visits and did not require additional appointments , so that the time and costs involved in providing maintenance were kept down Prosthetic outcome and patient satisfaction were evaluated in order to investigate whether there is a need or advantage to splint two implants in the m and ible retaining a hinging overdenture . This study included 36 fully edentulous patients r and omly divided into three groups according to the attachment system they received : magnets , ball attachments or straight bars ( reference group ) . None of the implants failed during the whole observation period in any of the groups . After 5 years of observation , the Bar group presented the highest retention capacity and the least prosthetic complications but revealed more mucositis and gingival hyperplasia . Patient satisfaction rated similar for all groups although the Magnet group showed lower retention forces . All patients would repeat the same treatment even though the majority of the Magnet group would prefer a more retentive solution because of limited denture stability BACKGROUND Patient-based outcomes with maxillary overdentures on a minimum number of implants , opposing m and ibular 2-implant overdentures are not evident in the literature . PURPOSE To evaluate patient 's satisfaction with maxillary 3-implant overdentures  , opposing m and ibular 2-implant overdentures , using two different attachment systems over the first 2 years of service . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Forty participants wearing m and ibular 2-implant overdentures for 3 years were r and omly allocated to one of two similar implant system groups to receive maxillary 3-implant overdentures . Twenty participants were allocated to splinted and unsplinted attachment system treatment groups for each system . Patient satisfaction with pre-treatment complete maxillary dentures , with maxillary 3-implant overdentures at baseline and annually for 2 years , was measured using visual analogue scale question naires and the oral health impact profiles . Palatal coverage of the maxillary overdentures was reduced at the first annual recall . RESULTS Data showed significant improvement in pain reduction , comfort , stability , and function 
    Output:
    
This may not hold true for fully edentulous patients in the maxilla .
In general , fully edentulous patients seem to opt for a fixed or removable rehabilitation on implants for specific reasons .
In these patients , the timing of implant placement does not seem to affect patient satisfaction .
Patients seem to prefer straightforward implant surgery over complex surgery that includes bone grafting .
Fully edentulous patients in the m and ible experience higher satisfaction with an IOD when compared to a CD .