Bioactive Titanium Surfaces: Interactions of Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells of Nano Devices Applied to Dental Practice.
active surfaces
cells
dental devices
nanomedicine
nanosurface
nanotechnologies
Journal
Biomedicines
ISSN: 2227-9059
Titre abrégé: Biomedicines
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101691304
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Feb 2019
12 Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
12
01
2019
revised:
28
01
2019
accepted:
11
02
2019
entrez:
15
2
2019
pubmed:
15
2
2019
medline:
15
2
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
METHODS
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30759865
pii: biomedicines7010012
doi: 10.3390/biomedicines7010012
pmc: PMC6466189
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Jan-Feb;15(1):15-46
pubmed: 10697938
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 29;100(9):5413-8
pubmed: 12686696
Nano Lett. 2009 Feb;9(2):659-65
pubmed: 19159323
Small. 2009 May;5(9):996-1006
pubmed: 19360718
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010 Jul;94(1):64-71
pubmed: 20336725
Nanoscale. 2011 Feb;3(2):335-53
pubmed: 20976359
Nanomedicine (Lond). 2013 Sep;8(9):1385-95
pubmed: 23286527
J Craniofac Surg. 2013 Jan;24(1):e1-2
pubmed: 23348316
Int J Nanomedicine. 2013;8:1773-81
pubmed: 23674891
Nat Mater. 2014 Jun;13(6):653-61
pubmed: 24681647
Int J Nanomedicine. 2014 May 13;9:2319-25
pubmed: 24872694
Eur J Dent. 2013 Apr;7(2):152-8
pubmed: 24883019
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014 Apr 15;7(4):817-25
pubmed: 24955150
J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 May;8(5):ZE07-10
pubmed: 24995264
Oral Implantol (Rome). 2014 Dec 27;7(1):1-10
pubmed: 25694795
Dent Clin North Am. 2015 Apr;59(2):505-20
pubmed: 25835806
Int J Nanomedicine. 2015 Dec 10;10:7385-96
pubmed: 26677327
Comput Math Methods Med. 2015;2015:943839
pubmed: 26798405
Adv Dent Res. 2016 Mar;28(1):10-7
pubmed: 26927483
Small. 2016 Apr 27;12(16):2130-45
pubmed: 27101419
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 30;11(6):e0158425
pubmed: 27362432
Minerva Stomatol. 2016 Dec;65(6):353-367
pubmed: 27362813
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:6285620
pubmed: 27478833
J Oral Implantol. 2017 Feb;43(1):45-50
pubmed: 27759503
J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2016 Sep 9;7(3):e16
pubmed: 27833741
Biomark Res. 2016 Dec 14;4:24
pubmed: 27999672
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2017 Jan-Feb;7(1):64-68
pubmed: 28316952
ScientificWorldJournal. 2017;2017:1029574
pubmed: 28474002
Open Dent J. 2017 Aug 30;11:460-465
pubmed: 28979575
Materials (Basel). 2017 Dec 17;10(12):null
pubmed: 29258208
Mar Drugs. 2018 Jan 13;16(1):null
pubmed: 29342834
J Craniofac Surg. 2018 Jul;29(5):1366-1369
pubmed: 29521757
Open Dent J. 2018 Mar 30;12:219-229
pubmed: 29682092
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018 Jun 12;38(5):737–745
pubmed: 29897355
Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Jun 29;19(7):null
pubmed: 29966238
Int J Nanomedicine. 2018 Jul 04;13:3883-3896
pubmed: 30013342
Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2018 Jul 26;113(9):e180212
pubmed: 30066753
Int J Nanomedicine. 2018 Sep 04;13:5045-5057
pubmed: 30233172
J Prosthet Dent. 1983 Sep;50(3):399-410
pubmed: 6352924