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

IF 0.5 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
E. F. Cagidiaco, F. Carboncini, S. Parrini, T. Doldo, M. Nagni, N. Nuti, M. Ferrari
{"title":"Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score of a one-year prospective study on three different connections for single-implant restorations","authors":"E. F. Cagidiaco, F. Carboncini, S. Parrini, T. Doldo, M. Nagni, N. Nuti, M. Ferrari","doi":"10.23805/JO.2018.10.04.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":42724,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osseointegration","volume":"92 1","pages":"130-135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osseointegration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2018.10.04.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

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.
单种植体修复中三种不同连接方式为期一年的前瞻性研究的功能性种植体修复评分
目的本前瞻性临床试验的目的是利用功能性种植体修复评分(FIPS)分析三种不同的基牙-种植体连接(1种六边形与2种圆锥型)单单元修复体在临床服务一年后的临床结果。材料与方法对30例患者后侧软组织水平种植体(TTc Windmix 10例,TTk Windmix 10例,Aadva GC 10例)进行骨水泥保留冠修复,随访1年。FIPS应用于临床和影像学检查之外的客观结果评估。定义了五个变量进行评估,每个种植体修复的最高得分为10分。记录患者满意度并与FIPS相关。结果所有种植体和连接冠的成活率均为100%,无任何生物或技术并发症。1组总FIPS为44,2组为43,3组为42。平均FIPS总分8.6±1.1分,评分范围为6 ~ 10分。变量“骨头”的得分最高(2.0;范围:2-2),以及“遮挡”(2.0;范围:2 - 2)。“设计”的平均得分(1.7±0.4;范围:1-2),“粘膜”(1.6±0.5;范围:1-2)和“近端间”(1.5±0.6;范围:1-2)更难满足。患者表现出较高的功能满意度(80.5±2.5;范围:65 - 100)。没有哪一种连接方式比其他两种更优越。三组间无统计学差异。FIPS与患者主观知觉存在显著相关,相关系数为0.80 (P < 0.0001)。结论经过1年的临床应用,锥形连接和六边形连接均有很大的应用潜力和良好的应用效果。FIPS是评估种植体成功的客观可靠的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Osseointegration
Journal of Osseointegration DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信