Table 4.
Modified USPHS criteria for evaluation of the restoration during the follow‐up period
| USPHS criteria (Implant, n = 24/Teeth, n = 24)a | Alpha (A) | Bravo (B) | Charlie (C) | Delta (D) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Framework fracture | No fracture of framework | ‐ | ‐ | Fracture of framework |
| Implant: 24 (100%) | Implant: 0 (0%) | |||
| Teeth: 24 (100%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | |||
| Veneering fracture | No fracture | Chipping but polishing possible | Chipping down to framework (repair needed) | New reconstruction is mandatory |
| Implant: 18 (75%) | Implant: 6 (25%) | Implant: 0 (0%) | Implant: 0 (0%) | |
| Teeth: 22 (91.7%) | Teeth: 2 (8.3%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | |
| Loosening of the restoration (cement and/or screw) | No loosening | ‐ | Repositioning possible | Repositioning not possible—new reconstruction is needed |
| Implant: 23 (95.8%) | Implant: 1 (4.2%) | Implant: (0%) | ||
| Teeth: 24 (100%) | Teeth: (0%) | Teeth: (0%) | ||
| Screw access hole restoration | No loss of restoration | ‐ | Restoration lost (repairable) | ‐ |
| Implant: 24 (100%) | Implant: 0 (0%) | |||
| Teeth: n/a | Teeth: n/a | |||
| Occlusal weara | No wear facets on restoration and opposing teeth | Small wear facets (diameter < 2 mm) on restoration and/or opposing teeth | Wear facets (diameter > 2 mm) on restoration and/or opposing teeth | New reconstruction is needed |
| Implant: 23 (95.8%) | Implant: 1 (4.2%) | Implant: 0 (0%) | Implant: 0 (0%) | |
| Teeth: 21 (95.5%) | Teeth: 1 (4.5%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | |
| Marginal adaptation | Probe does not catch | Probe catches slightly, but no gap detectable | Gap with cement exposure | New reconstruction is needed |
| Implant: 24 (100%) | Implant: 0 (0%) | Implant: 0 (0%) | Implant: 0 (0%) | |
| Teeth: 21 (87.5%) | Teeth: 1 (4.2%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | Teeth: 2 (8.3%) | |
| Anatomical forma | Ideal anatomical shape, good proximal contacts | Slightly over or under contoured, weak proximal contacts | Highly over or under contoured, open proximal contacts | New reconstruction is needed |
| Implant: 20 (83.3%) | Implant: 3 (12.5%) | Implant: 1 (4.2%) | Implant: 0 (0%) | |
| Teeth: 22 (100%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | |
| Radiographsa | No visible cementation gap on X‐ray | Minor gap visible | Major gap visible—new reconstruction not needed | Major gap visible—New reconstruction needed |
| Implant: 23 (95.8%) | Implant: 1 (4.2%) | Implant: (0%) | Implant: (0%) | |
| Teeth: 21 (95.5%) | Teeth: 1 (4.5%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | |
| Patient satisfactiona | Very satisfied | Moderately satisfied | Not satisfied—new reconstruction not needed | Not satisfied—new reconstruction needed |
| Implant: 21 (91.3%) | Implant: 2 (8.3%) | Implant: 1 (4.2%) | Implant: 0 (0%) | |
| Teeth: 19 (86.4%) | Teeth: 3 (13.6%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | |
| Overall (worst value per FDP) | Success and survival | Success and survival (impaired) | Survival | Failure |
| Implant: 11 (45.8%) | Implant: 10 (41.7%) | Implant: 3 (12.5%) | Implant: 0 (0%) | |
| Teeth: 16 (66.7%) | Teeth: 6 (25.0%) | Teeth: 0 (0%) | Teeth: 2 (8.3%) |
a
These items were examined at follow‐up visit and are thus presented for the 22 remaining teeth‐supported FDPs, other items at follow‐up or until failure occurred.