Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score of a one-year prospective study on three different connections for single-implant restorations
Aim The aim of this prospective clinical trial was to analyze, using the Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS), the clinical resultsof three different abutment-implant connections (1 hexagon vs 2 conical types) single-unit restorations after one year of clinical service. Material and methods Thirty patients were restored with cement-retained crowns on soft tissue level implants (10 TTc Windmix, 10 TTk Windmix and 10 Aadva GC) in posterior sites and followed-up for 1 year. FIPS was applied for objective outcome assessment beside clinical and radiographic examinations. Five variables were defined for evaluation, resulting in a maximum score of 10 per implant restoration. The patients’ level of satisfaction was recorded and correlated with FIPS. Results All implants and connected crowns revealed survival rates of 100% without any biological or technical complications after three years of loading. The total FIPS recorded for group 1 was 44, 43 in group 2 and 42 in group 3. The mean total FIPS score was 8.6±1.1, ranging from 6 to 10. The variable “bone” revealed the highest scores (2.0; range: 2–2), as well “occlusion” (2.0; range: 2–2). Mean scores for “design” (1.7 ±0.4; range: 1–2), “mucosa” (1.6±0.5; range: 1–2), and “interproximal” (1.5±0.6; range: 1–2) were more challenging to satisfy. The patients expressed a high level of functional satisfaction (80.5±2.5; range: 65–100). No type of connection showed to be superior to the other two. No statistically significant differences were found among the three tested groups. A significant correlation was found between FIPS and the subjective patients’ perception with a coefficient of 0.80 (P < 0.0001). Conclusions The findings of the clinical trial indicated the great potential of both conical and hexagon connections and their good performance after 1 year of clinical service. FIPS showed to be an objective and reliable instrument to assess implant success.
- Abstract views: 638
- PDF: 284
Copyright (c) 2018 Ariesdue
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.