***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: AIM The aim of the present prospect i ve study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of implants placed simultaneously with guided bone regeneration ( GBR ) using resorbable and non-resorbable membranes . MATERIAL S AND METHODS The original study population consisted of 72 patients receiving a total of 265 implants . In all GBR-treated sites , demineralized bovine bone mineral ( DBBM ) was used in combination either with a collagen ( CM ) or an Exp and ed polytetrafluoroethylene ( e-PTFE ) membrane . A total of 112 implants was treated with CM , 41 implants were treated with e-PTFE membranes , and 112 served as a control group because implants were entirely surrounded by bone and did not need any GBR procedures . Clinical and radiographic analyses were performed after a period of 12 - 14 years . RESULTS The median follow-up time was 12.5 years ( range 12 - 14 years ) . A total of 58 patients participated in the present investigation , corresponding to 80.5 % of the original study population . The cumulative implant survival rate at the follow-up examination was 93.2 % . For the control group the cumulative survival rate was 94.6 % , for the CM 91.9 % , and for the e-PTFE 92.6 % . Differences among the groups were not statistically significant . The radiographically determined marginal bone level ( MBL ) amounted to : control 2.36 mm ( SD ) , CM 2.4 mm ( SD ) , e-PTFE 2.53 mm ( SD ) . There is no evidence ( P < 0.2 ) that the slope of bone level over time is different for the three treatment groups . CONCLUSION It is concluded that implants placed simultaneously with GBR procedures using resorbable or non-resorbable membranes reveal a high survival rate ranging from 91.9 % to 92.6 % , therefore it is considered to be a safe and predictable therapy . [ Correction added after online publication 30 November 2012 : the marginal bone level of CM , e-PTFE , and control was corrected to ' control 2.36 mm ( SD ) , CM 2.4 mm ( SD ) , e-PTFE 2.53 mm ( SD ) ' in the Results section ] PURPOSE To present long-term clinical and radiographic data on single-implant treatment in the anterior maxilla and to compare these results with comparable data of central implants supporting fixed prostheses in the edentulous maxilla . MATERIAL S AND METHODS A total of 38 patients consecutively restored with 47 single-implant crowns in the anterior maxilla were included in the single-implant ( study ) group . The implants in the edentulous group ( control ) were included by r and omly selecting one of the central implants ( closest to midline ) from 76 consecutively treated edentulous patients . Mean age was 25.4 years ( SD : 10.0 ) and 60.1 years ( SD : 11.6 ) at inclusion ( P < .001 ) for the study and control groups , respectively . Clinical and radiographic data were retrospectively retrieved from files holding up to 15 years of function in both groups . RESULTS No implants in the study group were lost ( cumulative success rate : 100 % ) , while 3 implants in the control group were lost ( cumulative success rate : 95.4 % ) . Ten single crowns were replaced ( 15-year cumulative survival rate : 77.0 % ) , and the study group showed more mucosal problems and fistulas compared to the implants in the control group ( P < .05 ) . Loose screws were a common problem in the single-implant group during the first 5 years of function , but bone loss did not differ significantly between patients with stable and loose screws/fistulas ( P > .05 ) or between study and control implants after 15 years ( P > .05 ) . CONCLUSIONS There is an obvious difference between the survival of the implants ( 100 % ) and original implant crowns ( 77 % ) in the study group . The present early single-implant restorations showed significantly more mechanical/fistula problems compared to central implants in the edentulous maxilla ( P < .05 ) , but bone response was similar for both groups during 15 years of follow-up . Bone loss was not affected by the level of the implant head in relation to the cementoenamel junction of adjacent teeth , nor was it affected by mechanical or mucosal problems or persistent fistulas of the single implants during the entire follow-up period OBJECTIVES To assess prospect ively over 10 years the incidences of technical and /or biological complications and failures occurring in a cohort of consecutive partially edentulous patients with fixed reconstructions on implants of the ITI Dental Implant System . METHODS Eighty-nine patients were available , 34 ( 38.2 % ) were male , 55 ( 61.8 % ) were female . At the 10-year examination ( range 8 - 12 years ) , they were 58.9 years old ( range 28 - 88 years ) . RESULTS Single crowns ( SC ) : 48 patients had been restored with 69 SC on 69 implants . Five of the implants with the crowns were lost because of biological failures . Two crowns ( 2.9 % ) were remade because of technical failures . Total failure amounted to seven ( 10 % ) . Implant borne fixed partial dentures ( I-I FPD ) : In 29 patients who had been restored with 33 implant borne suprastructures , the total number of failed I-I FPD was 2 ( 6.1 % ) . Tooth-implant borne fixed partial dentures ( I-T FPD ) : In 21 patients , 22 mixed tooth-implant borne reconstructions were constructed . The number of failed FPD reached 7 ( 31.8 % ) . Statistically significantly fewer biological failures occurred with I-I FPD compared with the I-T FPDs ( ANOVA , Bonferroni , P=0.022 ) . The I-T FPDs experienced statistically significantly more frequent technical failures compared with the other two groups of suprastructures ( P=0.003 , 0.031 ) . Consequences of complications : The occurrence of loss of retention as a complication increased the odds ratio ( OR ) to 17.6 ( P<0.001 ) to end up in a technical failure . Similarly , the event of a porcelain fracture increased the OR for the suprastructure to be a failure at 10 years to 11.0 ( P < or = 0.004 ) . Treatment of periimplantitis increased the OR to 5.44 ( P < or = 0.011 ) to result in a biological failure compared with implants in which this type of treatment was not applied . CONCLUSION The three groups of suprastructures demonstrated marked differences in their patterns of failures and complications . Complications increased the risk for failure . Support by CRF , University of Berne , Switzerl and BACKGROUND The placement of an implant into a fresh extraction socket has been identified as a reliable technique , allowing a reduction in the time needed for prosthetic rehabilitation . This treatment modality is widely reported in the scientific literature ; however , the long-term outcomes and the need for guided bone regeneration ( GBR ) are still topics of debate . The aim of this prospect i ve study is to evaluate the clinical and radiologic findings from the 10-year follow-up of immediately placed implants , with and without the GBR procedure . METHODS A total of 159 implants in 91 patients are included in this study ; 101 implants required a GBR procedure simultaneously with placement . All implants were used to support a single crown restoration . The clinical /radiographic measurements were repeated each year up to the 10-year follow-up . At the 10-year follow-up visit , the papilla index and the apico-coronal location of mid-buccal soft tissue positions were recorded . RESULTS The 10-year cumulative success rate was 91.8 % ( 87.9 % in the non-GBR group and 94.1 % in the GBR group ) . The clinical attachment level ( CAL ) measurements were stable throughout the study , and 82 % of the implants showed marginal bone loss ( MBL ) of 0.6 to 1.5 mm at the 10-year visit ; moreover , these two parameters did not show significant differences between the GBR and non-GBR groups . Seventy percent of the implant sites showed acceptable outcomes in terms of interproximal papilla . The facial gingival level was more apical in the non-GBR group than in the GBR group ( P < 0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS The present prospect i ve clinical study shows that implants placed in fresh extraction sockets had a high cumulative success rate , namely 91.8 % after 10 years . No differences were detected in survival and success rate of implants whether GBR procedures were performed or not . The CAL , MBL , and marginal level of soft tissue measurements were stable throughout the 10-year evaluation BACKGROUND Long-term data comparing cemented and noncemented single-implant restorations  has not been reported . AIM To compare clinical and radiographic performance of  single-implant crown restorations  made by either directly baked porcelain to custom-made TiAdapt titanium abutments ( Nobel Biocare AB , Göteborg , Sweden ) ( test ) or cement crowns onto CeraOne ( Nobel Biocare AB ) abutments ( control ) after 10 years in function . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Altogether , 35 consecutive patients were provided with 41 turned single Brånemark System implants ( Nobel Biocare AB ) in the partially edentulous upper jaw . By r and om , 15 and 20 patients were provided with 18 test and 23 control implant crowns , respectively . Thereafter , clinical and radiographic data were collected and compared between the two groups . RESULTS None of the implants were found loose during the follow-up period ( 100 % ) . Few clinical problems were observed , and the overall average marginal bone loss was 0.26 mm ( SD 0.64 ) during 10 years in function . After the final tightening of the crowns , no significant differences were observed between the test and control groups ( p > .05 ) . The head of the implants was placed on an average 6.3 mm ( SD 2.24 ) below the cement/enamel junction of the adjacent teeth ( range 2.5 - 10.0 mm ) . Implants with reported mechanical and /or mucosal problems or placed more apically in relation to the adjacent teeth did not present more bone loss as compared with implants with no problems or placed more coronally , respectively ( p > .05 ) . CONCLUSIONS There seems to be no obvious clinical or radiographic differences between the test and control single-implant restorations during 10 years of follow-up . Occasionally , some restorations presented loose abutment screws and /or fistulas during follow-up . This implies a certain need for maintenance where a one-piece single-implant protocol ( test ) allows both for a simple clinical procedure at placement without cementation problems , as well as for an easy and simple maintenance of installed single implant crowns in long-term function 
    Output:
    
Single implant treatment is a predicable treatment over a 10-year period of time , with no indication of obvious changes in implant failure rate between 5 and 10 years .
However , replacement of new single crowns must be considered during the follow-up as part of regular maintenance .