Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-07-2018 | Original Article

The Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS): assessment of reproducibility and observer variability

Authors: Tim Joda, Fernando Zarone, Nicola U. Zitzmann, Marco Ferrari

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 6/2018

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to validate the reproducibility and observer variability of the Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS), while considering the level of dental experience for intra- and inter-examiner analysis.

Materials and methods

A total of 44 examiners (n = 31 undergraduate dental students and n = 13 postgraduate prosthodontic students) applied FIPS to ten sample cases each showing one implant-supported single crown for premolar or molar replacements. Examiners’ assessments were carried out twice at an interval of 2 weeks (round A and round B). Pearson’s correlations including 95% confidence intervals (CI95) were calculated for intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility testing. Cohen’s Kappa score was additionally used to analyze the homogeneity of each FIPS variable.

Results

The mean values of the total FIPS scores for round A (7.21 ± 0.91) and round B (7.27 ± 0.86) showed a strong correlation of 0.9374 (CI95 0.9250; 0.9478). No significant difference was identified between undergraduates and postgraduates representing different levels of dental experience. Homogeneity analysis of the defined FIPS variables was not significantly different.

Conclusions

Both intra- and inter-examiner analysis revealed very congruent results for reproducibility testing of FIPS. The findings validated the potential of FIPS as an objective and reliable evaluation instrument in assessing fixed implant restorations in posterior sites independent of the level of dental experience.

Clinical relevance

FIPS can be considered as an additional diagnostic tool to classify fixed implant restorations in routine dental practice, to compare follow-up observations, and to identify potential risks of failure.

Wismeijer D, Bragger U, Evans C, Kapos T, Kelly JR, Millen C, Wittneben JG, Zembic A, Taylor TD (2014) Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding restorative materials and techniques for implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29(Suppl):137–140. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2013.g2 CrossRefPubMed

Pommer B, Zechner W, Watzak G, Ulm C, Watzek G, Tepper G (2011) Progress and trends in patients' mindset on dental implants. II: implant acceptance, patient-perceived costs and patient satisfaction. Clin Oral Implants Res 22(1):106–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01969.x CrossRefPubMed

Belser UC, Grutter L, Vailati F, Bornstein MM, Weber HP, Buser D (2009) Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores. J Periodontol 80(1):140–151. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.080435 CrossRefPubMed

Furhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G (2005) Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res 16(6):639–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01193.x CrossRefPubMed

Juodzbalys G, Wang HL (2010) Esthetic index for anterior maxillary implant-supported restorations. J Periodontol 81(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090385 CrossRefPubMed

Meijer HJ, Stellingsma K, Meijndert L, Raghoebar GM (2005) A new index for rating aesthetics of implant-supported single crowns and adjacent soft tissues: the implant crown aesthetic index. Clin Oral Implants Res 16(6):645–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01128.x CrossRefPubMed

Tettamanti S, Millen C, Gavric J, Buser D, Belser UC, Bragger U, Wittneben JG (2016) Esthetic evaluation of implant crowns and peri-implant soft tissue in the anterior maxilla: comparison and reproducibility of three different indices. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 18(3):517–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12306 CrossRefPubMed

Joda T, Ferrari M, Gallucci GO, Wittneben JG, Bragger U (2017) Digital technology in fixed implant prosthodontics. Periodontol 73(1):178–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12164 CrossRef

Joda T, Ferrari M, Bragger U (2017) A prospective clinical cohort study analyzing single-unit implant crowns after three years of loading: introduction of a novel Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS). Clin Oral Implants Res 28(10):1291–1295. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12955 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Wyatt CC, Zarb GA (1998) Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13(2):204–211PubMed

11.

Chen ST, Buser D (2009) Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24(Suppl):186–217PubMed

12.

Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO (2012) Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res 91(3):242–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034511431252 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Berglundh T, Zitzmann NU, Donati M (2011) Are peri-implantitis lesions different from periodontitis lesions? J Clin Periodontol 38(Suppl 11):188–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01672.x CrossRefPubMed

14.

Jepsen S, Berglundh T, Genco R, Aass AM, Demirel K, Derks J, Figuero E, Giovannoli JL, Goldstein M, Lambert F, Ortiz-Vigon A, Polyzois I, Salvi GE, Schwarz F, Serino G, Tomasi C, Zitzmann NU (2015) Primary prevention of peri-implantitis: managing peri-implant mucositis. J Clin Periodontol 42(Suppl 16):S152–S157. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12369 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Joda T, Ferrari M, Bragger U (2017) Monolithic implant-supported lithium disilicate (LS2) crowns in a complete digital workflow: a prospective clinical trial with a 2-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 19(3):505–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12472 CrossRefPubMed

Title: The Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS): assessment of reproducibility and observer variability
Authors: Tim Joda
Fernando Zarone
Nicola U. Zitzmann
Marco Ferrari
Publication date: 01-07-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2332-7

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

The Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS): assessment of reproducibility and observer variability

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Clinical and laboratory evaluation of the effects of different treatment modalities on titanium healing caps: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

Effect of flapless ridge preservation with two different alloplastic materials in sockets with buccal dehiscence defects—volumetric and linear changes

Root-end surgery with leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin and an occlusive membrane: a randomized controlled clinical trial on patients’ quality of life

MI Varnish and MI Paste Plus in a caries prevention and remineralization study: a randomized controlled trial

Tranexamic acid as a local hemostasis method after dental extraction in patients on warfarin: a randomized controlled clinical study

Vancomycin and tobramycin impregnated mineralized allograft for the surgical regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis: a 1-year follow-up case series