Master Student, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Resident, Qingdao Stomatological Hospital, Qingdao, China.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Aug;80(8):1389-1397. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2022.04.013. Epub 2022 Apr 28.
Ultraviolet-mediated photofunctionalization is a valid technology for enhancing the osseointegration of titanium implants. However, there is no consensus on the effective exposure time to ultraviolet light. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different exposure times of ultraviolet-C (UVC) light on aged titanium implants and explore the optimal treatment duration of UVC photofunctionalization for osseointegration in an animal model.
Eight male beagle dogs (n = 48) were divided into a control group (n = 12) and 3 experimental groups (n = 12/12/12) which received 4-week-old implants without UVC treatment (C) or treated with UVC for 1/6 hour, 1/2 hour, and 1 hour (UVC-1/6 hour, UVC-1/2 hour, UVC-1 hour) immediately before placement. All the implants were placed 12 weeks after mandibular premolars extraction. Four dogs were euthanized after 4 and 12 weeks of healing, respectively. The marginal bone level and implant stability quotient were measured at implant placement and after sacrifice. Subsequently, micro-CT and histomorphometric analyses were performed following block harvesting.
No significant difference in marginal bone loss between the UVC-untreated and UVC-treated groups was found at 4 or 12 weeks. At 4 weeks, significantly higher BV/TV and bone-implant contact were observed in the UVC groups than in the C group, irrespective of the UVC-photofunctionalization duration (BV/TV: UVC-1/6 hour 0.48 ± 0.11, UVC-1/2 hour 0.50 ± 0.06, and UVC-1 hour 0.47 ± 0.08, C 0.34 ± 0.04; bone-implant contact : UVC-1/6 hour 84.30 ± 5.02%, UVC-1/2 hour 85.82 ± 5.05%, and UVC-1 hour 84.98 ± 3.86%, C 71.69 ± 3.52%. P < .05), whereas, no significant difference was observed among the UVC groups. At 12 weeks, there were no significant differences between the C group and UVC groups. After 4 and 12 weeks of healing, no significant difference in implant stability quotient values was observed between the C group and UVC groups.
UVC photofunctionalization improved the early osseointegration of aged titanium implants. However, the effect was not dependent on the UVC-light duration within the range from 1/6 hour to 1 hour.
紫外线介导的光功能化是增强钛植入物骨整合的有效技术。然而，对于紫外线照射的有效暴露时间尚无共识。本研究的目的是评估不同紫外线-C（UVC）光暴露时间对老化钛植入物的影响，并在动物模型中探索 UVC 光功能化促进骨整合的最佳治疗时间。
将 8 只雄性比格犬（n=48）分为对照组（n=12）和 3 个实验组（n=12/12/12），分别为未接受 UVC 处理的 4 周龄植入物（C）或接受 UVC 处理 1/6 小时、1/2 小时和 1 小时的植入物（UVC-1/6 小时、UVC-1/2 小时、UVC-1 小时）。所有植入物均在下颌前磨牙拔除后 12 周放置。4 只狗分别在愈合后 4 周和 12 周时处死。在植入物放置和处死时测量边缘骨水平和种植体稳定性指数。随后，在块收获后进行微 CT 和组织形态计量学分析。
在 4 周或 12 周时，UVC 治疗组与未治疗组的边缘骨丢失无显著差异。在 4 周时，与 C 组相比，UVC 组的 BV/TV 和骨-种植体接触明显更高，而与 UVC 光功能化持续时间无关（BV/TV：UVC-1/6 小时 0.48±0.11，UVC-1/2 小时 0.50±0.06，UVC-1 小时 0.47±0.08，C 组 0.34±0.04；骨-种植体接触：UVC-1/6 小时 84.30±5.02%，UVC-1/2 小时 85.82±5.05%，UVC-1 小时 84.98±3.86%，C 组 71.69±3.52%。P<0.05），而 UVC 组之间无显著差异。在 12 周时，C 组和 UVC 组之间无显著差异。愈合后 4 周和 12 周时，C 组和 UVC 组的种植体稳定性指数值无显著差异。
UVC 光功能化可改善老化钛植入物的早期骨整合。然而，在 1/6 小时至 1 小时的范围内，其效果并不依赖于 UVC 光持续时间。
