TABLE 5.

Modified USPHS criteria for evaluating implant‐supported restorations at the 1‐year follow‐up

	Alfa (A)	Bravo (B)	Charlie (C)	Delta (D)
Restoration fracture	Restoration not fractured 49 (100%)	Chipping, but polishing possible 0 (0%)	Chipping down to the abutment 0 (0%)	Restoration fractured, new restoration needed 0 (0%)
Abutment fracture	Abutment not fractured 49 (100%)	–	–	Abutment fractured, new restoration needed 0 (0%)
Loosening of the restoration (screw loosening or de‐cementation from abutment)	No loosening 47 (95.9%)	–	Repositioning possible 2 (4.1%)	Repositioning not possible, new restoration needed 0 (0%)
Screw‐access hole restoration	Restoration not lost 49 (100%)	–	Restoration lost (repairable) 0 (0%)	–
Wear	No wear facets on the restoration and opposing teeth 49 (100%)	Small wear facets (diameter < 2 mm) on restoration and/or opposing teeth 0 (0%)	Wear facets (diameter > 2 mm) on restoration and/or opposing teeth 0 (0%)	–
Anatomical shape	Ideal anatomical shape, tight proximal contacts and balanced occlusal contact 49 (100%)	Slightly over‐ or undercontoured, weak proximal contacts, occlusal contact only on restoration 0 (0%)	Highly over‐ or undercontoured, open proximal contacts, no occlusal contact on restoration 0 (0%)	–
Restoration color and translucency	No mismatch between restoration and adjacent teeth 0 (0%)	Slight mismatch between restoration and adjacent teeth 49 (100%)	Major mismatch between restoration and adjacent teeth 0 (0%)	–
Cementation gap	No cementation gap visible on radiograph 49 (100%)	Minor gap visible 0 (0%)	Major gap visible, new restoration not needed 0 (0%)	Major gap visible, new restoration needed 0 (0%)
Patient satisfaction	Very satisfied 49 (100%)	Moderately satisfied 0 (0%)	Not satisfied, new restoration not needed 0 (0%)	Not satisfied, new restoration needed 0 (0%)
	Survival and success 0 (0%)	Survival and success 47 (95.9%)	Survival, no success 2 (4.1%)	Failure 0 (0%)