Bioactive Titanium Surfaces: Interactions of Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells of Nano Devices Applied to Dental Practice

Background: In recent years, many advances have been made in the fields of bioengineering and biotechnology. Many methods have been proposed for the in vitro study of anatomical structures and alloplastic structures. Many steps forward have been made in the field of prosthetics and grafts and one of the most debated problems lies in the biomimetics and biocompatibility of the materials used. The contact surfaces between alloplastic material and fabric are under study, and this has meant that the surfaces were significantly improved. To ensure a good contact surface with the cells of our body and be able to respond to an attack by a biofilm or prevent the formation, this is the true gold standard. In the dental field, the study of the surfaces of contact with the bone tissue of the implants is the most debated, starting from the first concepts of osteointegration. Method: The study searched MEDLINE databases from January 2008 to November 2018. We considered all the studies that talk about nanosurface and the biological response of the latter, considering only avant-garde works in this field. Results: The ultimate aim of this study is to point out all the progress made in the field of bioengineering and biotechnologies about nanosurface. Surface studies allow you to have alloplastic materials that integrate better with our body and allow more predictable rehabilitations. Particularly in the field of dental implantology the study of surfaces has allowed us to make huge steps forward in times of rehabilitation. Overcoming this obstacle linked to the time of osseointegration, however, today the real problem seems to be linked to the “pathologies of these surfaces”, or the possible infiltration, and formation of a biofilm, difficult to eliminate, being the implant surface, inert. Conclusions: The results of the present investigation demonstrated how nanotechnologies contribute substantially to the development of new materials in the biomedical field, being able to perform a large number of tests on the surface to advance research. Thanks to 3D technology and to the reconstructions of both the anatomical structures and eventually the alloplastic structures used in rehabilitation it is possible to consider all the mechanical characteristics too. Recent published papers highlighted how the close interaction between cells and the biomaterial applied to the human body is the main objective in the final integration of the device placed to manage pathologies or for rehabilitation after a surgical tumor is removed.

[1]  Giovanna Orsini,et al.  Nanoscale surface modifications of medically relevant metals: state-of-the art and perspectives. , 2011, Nanoscale.

[2]  F. Kloss,et al.  Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration , 2016, BioMed research international.

[3]  L. Fiorillo,et al.  Interferon Crevicular Fluid Profile and Correlation with Periodontal Disease and Wound Healing: A Systemic Review of Recent Data , 2018, International journal of molecular sciences.

[4]  A. Allegra,et al.  Titanium Miniplates: A New Risk Factor for the Development of the Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw , 2013, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[5]  M. Keidar,et al.  Enhanced human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell functions on cathodic arc plasma-treated titanium , 2015, International journal of nanomedicine.

[6]  A. Nanci,et al.  Oxidative nanopatterning of titanium generates mesoporous surfaces with antimicrobial properties , 2014, International journal of nanomedicine.

[7]  J B Brunski,et al.  Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: current status and future developments. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[8]  H. Chien,et al.  Dental implant bioactive surface modifications and their effects on osseointegration: a review , 2016, Biomarker Research.

[9]  M. Cicciu',et al.  Atomic force microscopy of bacteria from periodontal subgingival biofilm: Preliminary study results , 2013, European journal of dentistry.

[10]  G. Isola,et al.  Histologic Evaluation of Soft and Hard Tissue Healing Following Alveolar Ridge Preservation with Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral Covered with Xenogenic Collagen Matrix. , 2018, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[11]  Umberto Romeo,et al.  Fem and Von Mises Analysis of OSSTEM ® Dental Implant Structural Components: Evaluation of Different Direction Dynamic Loads , 2018, The open dentistry journal.

[12]  G. Spagnuolo,et al.  Interface Between MTA and Dental Bonding Agents: Scanning Electron Microscope Evaluation , 2017, Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry.

[13]  Eugenio Guglielmino,et al.  FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. , 2014, International journal of clinical and experimental medicine.

[14]  M. Cicciu',et al.  Peri-Implant Mucositis and Peri-Implantitis: A Current Understanding of Their Diagnosis, Clinical Implications, and a Report of Treatment Using a Combined Therapy Approach. , 2017, The Journal of oral implantology.

[15]  E. Guglielmino,et al.  FEM and Von Mises analyses of different dental implant shapes for masticatory loading distribution. , 2014, ORAL & implantology.

[16]  Ali Khademhosseini,et al.  Advancing Tissue Engineering: A Tale of Nano-, Micro-, and Macroscale Integration. , 2016, Small.

[17]  N. Sharma,et al.  Nanosurface - the future of implants. , 2014, Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR.

[18]  L. Fiorillo,et al.  FEM and Von Mises Analysis on Prosthetic Crowns Structural Elements: Evaluation of Different Applied Materials , 2017, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[19]  M. Raspanti,et al.  Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Evaluation of the Interface between a Nanostructured Calcium-Incorporated Dental Implant Surface and the Human Bone , 2017, Materials.

[20]  F. Rosei,et al.  Improving biocompatibility of implantable metals by nanoscale modification of surfaces: an overview of strategies, fabrication methods, and challenges. , 2009, Small.

[21]  L. Fiorillo,et al.  Implantology and Periodontal Disease: The Panacea to Problem Solving? , 2017, The open dentistry journal.

[22]  Feilong Deng,et al.  Micro-/nano-topography of selective laser melting titanium enhances adhesion and proliferation and regulates adhesion-related gene expressions of human gingival fibroblasts and human gingival epithelial cells , 2018, International journal of nanomedicine.

[23]  L. Fiorillo,et al.  Facial Bone Reconstruction Using both Marine or Non-Marine Bone Substitutes: Evaluation of Current Outcomes in a Systematic Literature Review , 2018, Marine drugs.

[24]  T. Webster,et al.  Nanostructured magnesium has fewer detrimental effects on osteoblast function , 2013, International journal of nanomedicine.

[25]  O. Ogle Implant surface material, design, and osseointegration. , 2015, Dental clinics of North America.

[26]  Gabriele Cervino,et al.  Three-dimensional evaluation of different prosthesis retention systems using finite element analysis and the Von Mises stress test. , 2016, Minerva stomatologica.

[27]  P. Branemark Osseointegration and its experimental background. , 1983, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[28]  A. Ramanauskaite,et al.  The 1st Baltic Osseointegration Academy and Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Consensus Conference 2016. Summary and Consensus Statements: Group III - Peri-Implantitis Treatment , 2016, Journal of oral & maxillofacial research.

[29]  L. Fiorillo,et al.  Upper First Premolar Positioning Evaluation for the Stability of the Dental Occlusion: Anatomical Considerations , 2018, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[30]  Zhaoyu Ba,et al.  Nanoporous diopside modulates biocompatibility, degradability and osteogenesis of bioactive scaffolds of gliadin-based composites for new bone formation , 2018, International journal of nanomedicine.

[31]  Eugenio Guglielmino,et al.  FEM Analysis of Mandibular Prosthetic Overdenture Supported by Dental Implants: Evaluation of Different Retention Methods , 2015, Comput. Math. Methods Medicine.

[32]  Yan-Ren Lin,et al.  Spatial Control of Cell-Nanosurface Interactions by Tantalum Oxide Nanodots for Improved Implant Geometry , 2016, PloS one.

[33]  J. Brunski,et al.  Gene expression profiling and histomorphometric analyses of the early bone healing response around nanotextured implants. , 2013, Nanomedicine.

[34]  F. Rosei,et al.  Nanoscale oxidative patterning of metallic surfaces to modulate cell activity and fate. , 2009, Nano letters.

[35]  M. Roudbary,et al.  What are the advantages of living in a community? A microbial biofilm perspective! , 2018, Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz.

[36]  A. Nanci,et al.  Initial evaluation of bone ingrowth into a novel porous titanium coating. , 2010, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[37]  B. Boyan,et al.  Implant Surface Design Regulates Mesenchymal Stem Cell Differentiation and Maturation , 2016, Advances in dental research.

[38]  A. Metters,et al.  Synthetic matrix metalloproteinase-sensitive hydrogels for the conduction of tissue regeneration: Engineering cell-invasion characteristics , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  Joseph H. Gorman,et al.  Injectable and bioresponsive hydrogels for on-demand matrix metalloproteinase inhibition , 2014, Nature materials.