Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score of a one-year prospective study on three different connections for single-implant restorations

  • E. Ferrari Cagidiaco | calcherina@gmail.com Dipartimento di Paradontologia, Universidad Complutense, Madrid - Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Mediche, Università di Siena, Italy.
  • F. Carboncini Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, Italy.
  • S. Parrini Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Mediche, Università di Siena, Italy.
  • T. Doldo Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Mediche, Università di Siena, Italy.
  • M. Nagni Dipartimento di Odontostomatologia, Università Vita e Salute, S. Raffaele, Milano, Italy.
  • N. Uti Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Mediche, Università di Siena, Italy.
  • M. Ferrari Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Mediche, Università di Siena, Italy.

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Published
2018-11-14
Section
Articles
Keywords
Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score, abutment-implant connection, single-unit restorations
Statistics
Abstract views: 57

PDF: 19
Share it

Most read articles by the same author(s)