An Integrated Overview of Ultraviolet Technology for Reversing Titanium Dental Implant Degradation: Mechanism of Reaction and Effectivity

Abstract

Titanium is widely used as an implanted material in various clinical applications, especially in orthopedics and dental implantology. Following manufacturing and storage, titanium dental implants have the ability to undergo aging, which renders a reduction in osteoblast cellular activity during the healing process, so advancement of a surface treatment to recreate bioactive implant surfaces are required. Ultra-violet (UV) surface treatment has been introduced as a potential solution to reverse the aging process via removal of hydrocarbon contamination on the surface. This narrative review aimed to discuss the current understanding of the mechanism of titanium aging and provide insights into the mechanism that improves the biocompatibility of titanium implants following UV treatment. Additionally, the findings from preclinical and clinical studies is integratively presented. A reference search was performed through the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases based on the keywords titanium degradation, titanium aging, photofunctionalization, and UV treatment. Emerging data demonstrated the positive effect of UV light on osteoblast cells with enhanced alkaline phosphatase activity in vitro and increased bone-implant contact in animal studies. Despite limited human studies, the data reported here appear to support the benefit of UV light photofunctionalization on titanium surfaces as an alternative to reverse the titanium aging process. The direction of future research should focus on prospective randomized blinded clinical trials.

Restoration of Expired Dental Implants by Ultraviolet C Photofunctionalization: An in vitro study

“…Implant surface hydrophilicity improved the degree of osseointegration 12 , implant fixation, and enhanced bone-implant contact 35 . The reduction of the aged titanium surface's wettability could be attributed to the inevitable progressive accumulation of surface hydrocarbon contaminants [1][2][3]36 , which was indicated in one study to be 17.9% to 76.5% on 34 non-expired different implants 37 . However, the effect of wettability on surface protein adsorption showed diversity in the literature.…”

“…The passing of the expiration date of the titanium implants despite frequent usage is a challenge to be investigated. Expired titanium dental implant carries two crucial issues: the biological aging of the titanium oxide (TiO 2 ) surface layer 1 and the potential loss of sterilization of the packaged implant.…”

“…Biological aging of the titanium implants is a time-dependent degradation of the titanium surface owning to TiO 2 surface layer hydrocarbon contamination during storage under ambient conditions. 1 Hydrocarbon contamination progressively decreases the surface wettability of the implant 2,3 and reduces protein adsorption on the surface of the implants 4 . Both, in turn, reduce osteoblasts' migration, attachment, spread, and proliferation on the implant surface, leading to incomplete osseointegration.…”

“…Hydrocarbon contamination of the TiO 2 surface layer starts after four weeks of manufacturing. 1 This could reveal the pronounced effect of the prolonged aging periods of the expired implants, which is the working period, four years in most of the used titanium implants 1 , plus the time following the expiration date.…”

An In-Vitro Analysis of Peri-Implant Mucosal Seal Following Photofunctionalization of Zirconia Abutment Materials

“…Considering that contaminants and chemical debris could significantly change the composition of the surface at the interface level with biological tissues, the cleaning and disinfection techniques adopted before experimental procedures should be carefully selected and performed. In our previous review, we found that alcohol as a mode of sterilization could potentially induce nonbiological contamination, such as hydrocarbon compounds, to the material surfaces [ 37 ]. Most studies have shown that surface impurities have been removed following surface photofunctionalization [ 25 , 38 ].…”