Multifunctional TiO2 coatings developed by plasma electrolytic oxidation technique on a Ti20Nb20Zr4Ta alloy for dental applications

Influence of antibacterial surface treatment on dental implants on cell viability: A systematic review

“…The search strategy found 1178 articles in the databases. After removing duplicates in EndNote Web, it resulted in 1011 articles to be evaluated by title and abstract, of which 21 were selected for reading in full, of these 12 [ 7 , 8 , 27 , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] ] were included in this systematic review because they met the eligibility criteria and nine were excluded ( Appendix 2 ). It is noteworthy that no article was included in the list of references and the gray literature ( Fig.…”

“…Table 2 shows the included studies that applied chitosan (CS) [ 9 , 27 , 35 ], poly (adipic anhydride) ((C6H8O3)n) (PADA) [ 7 ], and poly(lactic acid-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) [ 33 ] associated with the antibiotic cephalexin (CEF) [ 7 ], vancomycin (VAN) [ 7 ], amoxicillin (AMX) [ 7 ]; CS polymer associated with an antibacterial material bioactive glass (58S-BG) [ 35 ], the addition of antibacterial silver ion (Ag) [ 34 ]; and addition of antibacterial materials such as zirconium nitride (ZrN) [ 36 ] and low-molecular-weight quaternized polyethyleneimine (QPEI) [ 31 ].…”

“…From the evaluated studies, it is observed that in the studies by Kazek-Kęsik et al, 2019 [ 33 ], Leśniak-Ziółkowska et al, 2020 [ 7 ], López-Ortega et al, 2022 [ 34 ], Mokhtari et al, 2018 [ 35 ], Norowski et al, 2011 [ 27 ], Pistilli et al, 2018 [ 36 ], antimicrobial surface treatments showed non-cytotoxic antibacterial activity for osteoblastic cells. With the exception of the studies from Song et al, 2022 [ 30 ]and Sun et al, 2019 [ 31 ] that the treatments were antibacterial but showed osteoblastic cytotoxicity.…”

“… All coatings evaluated with antibiotics were cytocompatible and inhibited the formation of bacterial colonies, with AMX being the best. López-Ortega et al, 2022 [ 34 ] Ti–20Nb–20Zr–4Ta Bacterial assay And Osteoblast assay G1 = Ti–20Nb–20Zr–4Ta G2 = Ti–20Nb–20Zr–4Ta/PEO/Ca + P G3 = Ti–20Nb–20Zr–4Ta/PEO/Ca + P/Ag PEO Bacterial assay and Osteoblast assay: Ti–20Nb–20Zr–4Ta CFU E. coli G3>G2 = G1 The G3 group showed a significant reduction in bacterial activity. However, it is noteworthy that the p-value was not reported.…”

“…The literature presents surface treatments classified as antibacterial by adding antibacterial ions, drugs, and nanomaterials, and non-antibacterial treatments can potentially reduce bacterial adhesion by reducing the favorable area for bacterial colonization [ 7 , 8 , 27 , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] ]. An et al [ 39 ] demonstrated that the anodizing treatment by increasing the diameter of the TiO2 nanotube reduced bacterial activity.…”