***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: PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy of short ( 5 or 6 mm long ) dental implants vs 10 mm or longer implants placed in crestally lifted sinuses . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Twenty partially edentulous patients with 5 to 7 mm of residual crestal height and at least 7 mm thickness below the maxillary sinuses as measured on computed tomography scans were r and omised according to a parallel group design to receive either one to two 5 or 6 mm long implants ( 10 patients ) or 10 mm long implants ( 10 patients ) after crestal sinus lifting and grafting with anorganic bovine bone . Implants were left to heal submerged for 4 months and were loaded with reinforced acrylic provisional prostheses , replaced , after 4 months , by definitive provisionally cemented or screw-retained metal-ceramic or metal-composite prostheses . Outcome measures were : prosthesis and implant failures , any complications , radiographic peri-implant marginal bone level changes , and patient 's satisfaction assessed by blinded assessors , when possible . All patients were followed up to 3 years after loading . RESULTS Two patients from the augmented group dropped out after the 1-year follow-up . No implant or prosthesis failure occurred . One short implant patient was affected by two complications vs one complication in the long implant group . There was no difference for patients experiencing complications between the two groups ( difference in proportions = -0.03 % ; 95%CI : -0.32 to 0.27 ; P = 1.000 ) . Short implants lost 0.89 ± 0.25 mm and long implants lost 1.08 ± 0.29 mm of peri-implant marginal bone 3 years after loading , the difference between the two groups being not statistically significant ( difference = -0.19 mm ; 95%CI : -0.46 to 0.09 ; P = 0.165 ) . All patients were fully or partially satisfied with function and fully satisfied with aesthetics . CONCLUSIONS Both techniques achieved excellent results and no differences were observed between prostheses supported by one to two 5 or 6 mm long implants vs 10 mm long in posterior atrophic maxillae up to 3 years after loading ; therefore it is up to clinicians to decide which procedure to use , although longer follow-ups with larger patient population s are needed to better underst and if one of these procedures could be more effective in the long-term . Conflict of interest statement : this study was partially supported by Zimmer Biomet . However , data property belonged to the authors , and by no means did the manufacturer interfere with the conduct of the trial or the publication of its results PURPOSE To compare the clinical outcome of immediately loaded cross-arch maxillary prostheses supported by zygomatic implants vs conventional implants placed in augmented bone . MATERIAL S AND METHODS A total of 71 edentulous patients with severely atrophic maxillas , who did not have sufficient bone volume to place dental implants or when it was possible to place only two implants in the front area ( minimal diameter 3.5 mm and length of 8 mm ) and less than 4.0 mm of bone height subantrally , were r and omised according to a parallel group design . They ( 35 patients ) received zygomatic implants to be loaded immediately vs grafting with a xenograft , followed , after 6 months of graft consolidation , by the placement of six to eight conventional dental implants , submerged for 4 months ( 36 patients ) . To be loaded immediately , zygomatic implants had to be inserted with an insertion torque superior to 40 Ncm . Screw-retained , metal-reinforced , acrylic provisional prostheses were provided to be replaced by definitive Procera Implant Bridge Titanium prostheses ( Nobel Biocare , Göteborg , Sweden ) with ceramic or acrylic veneer material s 4 months after initial loading . Outcome measures were : prosthesis , implant and augmentation failures , any complications , quality of life ( OHIP-14 ) , the number of days that patients experienced total or partial impaired activity , time to function , and number of dental visits , assessed by independent assessors . Patients were followed up to 4 months after loading . RESULTS No augmentation procedure failed . Three patients dropped out from the augmentation group . Six prostheses could not be delivered or failed in the augmentation group vs one prosthesis in the zygomatic group , the difference being statistically significant ( difference in proportions = 15.32 % ; P = 0.04 ; 95 % CI : 0.23 to 31.7 ) . Eight patients lost 35 implants in the augmentation group vs three implants in one patient from the zygomatic group , the difference being statistically significant ( difference in proportions = 21.38 % ; P = 0.001 ; 95 % CI : 3.53 to 39.61 ) . In total , 14 augmented patients were affected by 20 complications vs 26 zygomatic patients ( 35 complications ) , the difference being statistically significant ( difference in proportions = 31.87 % ; P = 0.008 ; 95 % CI : 6.48 to 53.37 ) . The OHIP-14 score was 3.68 ± 5.41 for augmented patients and 4.97 ± 5.79 for zygomatic patients , with no statistically significant differences between groups ( mean difference = 1.29 ; 95%CI -1.60 to 4.18 ; P = 0.439 ) . Both groups had significantly improved OHIP-14 scores from before rehabilitation ( P < 0.001 for both augmented and zygomatic patients ) . The number of days of total infirmity was , on average , 7.42 ± 3.17 for the augmented group and 7.17 ± 1.96 for the zygomatic group , the difference not being statistically significant ( mean difference = -0.25 ; 95 % CI : -1.52 to 1.02 ; P = 0.692 ) . Days of partial infirmity were on average 14.24 ± 4.64 for the augmented group and 12.17 ± 3.82 for the zygomatic group , the difference being statistically significant ( mean difference = -2.07 ; 95 % CI : -4.12 to -0.02 ; P = 0.048 ) . The mean number of days to have a functional prosthesis was 444.32 ± 207.86 for augmented patients and 1.34 ± 2.27 for zygomatic patients , the difference being statistically significant ( mean difference = -442.9 ; 95 % CI : -513.10 to -372.86 ; P < 0.001 ) . The average number of dental visits was 16.79 ± 10.88 for augmented patients and 12.58 ± 5.21 for zygomatic patients , the difference not being statistically significant ( mean difference = -4.21 ; 95 % CI -8.48 to 0.06 ; P = 0.053 ) . CONCLUSIONS Preliminary 4-months post-loading data suggest zygomatic implants were associated with statistically significantly less prosthetic ( one vs six patients ) and implant failures ( one patient lost three implants versus 35 implants in eight patients ) as well as time needed to functional loading ( 1.3 days vs 444.3 days ) when compared with augmentation procedures and conventionally loaded dental implants . Even if more complications were reported for zygomatic implants , which were solved spontaneously or could be h and led , zygomatic implants proved to be a better rehabilitation modality for severely atrophic maxillae . Long-term data are essential to confirm or dispute these preliminary results . Conflict of interest statement : This study was originally supported by Nobel Biocare , the manufacturer of the implants , and the provisional and definitive prosthetic components used in this study , which were provided free for the patients . However , before any results were known , Nobel Biocare withdrew the financial support and recruitment had to be stopped . Tecnoss ( Giaveno , Torino , Italy ) kindly donated the bone substitutes and the membranes , whereas Global D ( Brignais , France ) donated the osteo synthesis screws . Data property belonged to the authors and by no means did the manufacturers interfere with the publication of the results PURPOSE To evaluate whether 4.0 mm short dental implants could be an alternative to augmentation with xenographs in the maxilla and placement of at least 10.0 mm long implants in posterior atrophic jaws . MATERIAL S AND METHODS A group of 40 patients with atrophic posterior ( premolar and molar areas ) m and ibles with 5.0 mm to 6.0 mm bone height above the m and ibular canal and 40 patients with atrophic maxillas having 4.0 mm to 5.0 mm below the maxillary sinus , were r and omised according to a parallel group design to receive between one and three 4.0 mm long implants or one to three implants of at least 10.0 mm long in augmented bone , at two centres . All implants had a diameter of 4.0 mm or 4.5 mm . M and ibles were vertically augmented with inter-positional equine bone blocks and resorbable barriers . Implants were placed 4 months after the inter-positional grafting . Maxillary sinuses were augmented with particulated porcine bone via a lateral window covered with resorbable barriers , and implants were placed simultaneously . Implants were not submerged and were loaded after 4 months with provisional screw-retained reinforced acrylic restorations replaced after another 4 months by definitive screw-retained metal-composite prostheses . Patients were followed up to 1 year post-loading . Outcome measures were : prosthesis and implant failures , any complication , and peri-implant marginal bone level changes . RESULTS Three patients dropped out ; one from the maxillary augmented group , one from the m and ibular augmented group , and one from the maxillary short implant group . In six augmented m and ibles ( 30 % ) it was not possible to place implants of at least 10.0 mm , so shorter implants were placed instead . In m and ibles , one implant from the augmented group failed vs two 4.0 mm implants in two patients from the short implant group . In maxillae , three short implants failed in two patients vs seven long implants in four patients ( two long implants and one short implant dropped into the maxillary sinus ) . Two prostheses on short implants ( one m and ibular and one maxillary ) were placed at a later stage because of implant failures , vs six prostheses ( one m and ibular and five maxillary ) at augmented sites ( one m and ibular prosthesis not delivered , three maxillary prostheses delivered with delays , one not delivered , and one failed ) at augmented sites . In particular , three patients in the augmented group ( one m and ible and two maxillae ) were not wearing a prosthesis . There were no statistically significant differences in implant failures ( P ( chi-square test ) = 0.693 ; difference in proportion = 0.03 ; CI 95 % -0.11 to 0.17 ) or prostheses failures ( P ( chi-square test ) = 0.126 ; difference in proportion = 0.10 ; CI 95 % -0.03 to 0.24 ) . At m and ibular sites , nine augmented patients were affected by complications vs two patients treated with short implants ( P ( chi-square test ) = 0.01 ; difference in proportion = 0.37 ; CI 95 % 0.11 to 0.63 ) , the difference being statistically significant . No significant differences were found for maxillae : nine sinus-lifted patients vs four short implant patients were affected by complications ( P ( chi-square test ) = 0.091 ; difference in proportion = 0.25 ; CI 95 % -0.03 to 0.53 ) . At 1-year post-loading , average peri-implant bone loss was 0.51 mm at 4 mm long m and ibular implants , 0.77 mm at 10 mm or longer m and ibular implants , 0.63 mm at short maxillary implants and 0.72 mm at long maxillary implants . The difference was statistically significant in m and ibles ( mean difference -0.26 mm , 95 % CI -0.39 to -0.13 , P ( ANCOVA ) < 0.001 ) , but not in maxillae ( mean difference -0.09 mm , 95 % CI -0.24 to 0.05 , P ( ANCOVA ) = 0.196 ) . CONCLUSIONS One year after loading 4.0 mm long implants achieved similar results , if not better , than longer implants in augmented jaws , but were affected by fewer complications .  Short implants might be a preferable choice over bone augmentation , especially in m and ibles , since the treatment is less invasive , faster , cheaper , and associated with less morbidity . However , 5 to 10 years post-loading data are necessary before making reliable recommendations PURPOSE To evaluate whether 5.0 × 5.0 mm dental implants with a novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface could be an alternative to implants of at least 10.0 mm long placed in bone augmented with bone substitutes in posterior atrophic jaws . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Forty patients with atrophic posterior ( premolar and molar areas ) m and ibles with 5.0 mm to 7.0 mm bone height above 
    Output:
    
Five years after loading , prosthetic and implant failures were similar between the two interventions , but complications and peri-implant marginal bone loss were higher and more severe at longer implants placed in vertically augmented m and ibles .
However in the meantime short implants could be the preferable option