Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 2319–2324 | Cite as

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

  • Tim Joda
  • Fernando Zarone
  • Nicola U. Zitzmann
  • Marco Ferrari
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Diagnostic test study Dental implant Fixed prosthodontics Reproducibility Validity Functional implant prosthodontic score (FIPS) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Funding

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.

Ethical approval

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.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 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. 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. 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
  4. 4.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 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
  8. 8.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 10.
    Wyatt CC, Zarb GA (1998) Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13(2):204–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen ST, Buser D (2009) Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24(Suppl):186–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental MedicineUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine BaselUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental MedicineUniversity of NaplesNaplesItaly
  4. 4.Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Materials, School of Dental MedicineUniversity of SienaSienaItaly
  5. 5.Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental MedicineUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations