The Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS): assessment of reproducibility and observer variability
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsDiagnostic test study Dental implant Fixed prosthodontics Reproducibility Validity Functional implant prosthodontic score (FIPS)
The authors are grateful to all voluntary participants for intra- and inter-examiner analyses, and acknowledge Mr. Gabriel Fischer for the statistical support of the correlation analyses.
The work was supported by the Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 1.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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar