| Literature DB >> 27441840 |
Jose Carlos Bernedo Alcazar1, Mabel Miluska Suca Salas1,2, Marcus Cristian Muniz Conde1, Luiz Alexandre Chisini1, Flávio Fernando Demarco1,3, Sandra Beatriz Chaves Tarquinio1, Neftali Lenin Villarreal Carreño1,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cathodic polarization seems to be an electrochemical method capable of modifying and coat biomolecules on titanium surfaces, improving the surface activity and promoting better biological responses.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27441840 PMCID: PMC4956102 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155231
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flowchart information of the different phases of papers search and selection.
Quality assessment according to ARRIVE and SYRCLE criteria.
| Quality Criteria statements | Authors | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SYRCLE (Bias) | ARRIVE statements | Tao et al., 2016 | Liang et al., 2014 | Lamolle et al., 2010 | Lamolle et al., 2009 | Zhang et al., 2009 | Young-Taeg et al., 2009 | Ban et al., 1996 | Frank et al., 2014 | Xing et al., 2014 | Huang et al., 2013 | Ou et al., 2008 | De Giglio et al., 2007 | Hosaka et al., 2006 | |
| AM | AM and CM | AM | AM | AM | AM | AM | CM | CM | CM | CM | CM | CM | |||
| Summary of the background, research objectives | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Details of the species or strain of animal used | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Key methods, principal findings and conclusions | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Background information | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Experimental approach | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Relevance to human biology | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 4 | |||||||||||||||
| Experimental and control groups | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||
| Allocation samples | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Randomization samples | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Blinding (Researchers, caregivers, assessors) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| in vitro cellular detail method | 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Specimens characteristics and preparations | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Coating procedures | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Anesthesia | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Antibiotics | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Analgesia | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Surgical procedure | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||
| Species | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| strain, sex, developmental stage, weight | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| source of animals | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Related assessments and interventions | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Sample size | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Sample size calculation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Number of animals in each experimental group | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Number of samples in each experimental group | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | ||
| Allocation animals to experimental groups | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Randomization or matching | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Order in which animals were treated and assessed | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Absolute numbers in each group included in each analysis | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Explanation for exclusion | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
| DISCUSSION | |||||||||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Study limitations | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Implications/ n animal reduction | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
* items assess also for in vitro cellular tests 0 = No (high risk of bias), 1 = Yes (low risk of bias) 2 = Unclear (unclear risk of bias) 3 = partial reported 4 = not applicable; AM = animal model CM = cellular model
Quantitative results of ARRIVE according to the 20 evaluated items.
| Variables/Category | No(high) | Yes(low) | Unclear | Partial report | Total | Risk bias | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | |||
| 1. Tao et al., 2016 | 3 | 15.5 | 9 | 45.0 | 1 | 5.0 | 7 | 35.0 | 20 | Unclear/high |
| 2. Liang et al., 2014 | 4 | 20.0 | 9 | 45.0 | 2 | 10.0 | 5 | 25.0 | 20 | Unclear/high |
| 3. Lamolle et al., 2010 | 3 | 15.0 | 10 | 50.0 | 2 | 10.0 | 5 | 25.0 | 20 | Medium |
| 4. Lamolle et al., 2009 | 4 | 20.0 | 9 | 45.0 | 2 | 10.0 | 5 | 25.0 | 20 | Unclear/high |
| 5. Zhang et al., 2009 | 4 | 20.0 | 5 | 25.0 | 4 | 20.0 | 7 | 35.0 | 20 | High |
| 6. Young-Taeg et al., 2009 | 5 | 25.0 | 9 | 45.0 | 1 | 5.0 | 5 | 25.0 | 20 | Unclear/high |
| 7. Ban et al., 1997 | 4 | 20.0 | 6 | 30.0 | 3 | 15.0 | 7 | 35.0 | 20 | High |
| 8. Frank et al., 2014 | 2 | 14.3 | 10 | 71.4 | 1 | 7.1 | 1 | 7.1 | Medium | |
| 9. Xing et al., 2014 | 2 | 14.3 | 10 | 71.4 | 1 | 7.1 | 1 | 7.1 | Medium | |
| 10. Huang et al., 2013 | 2 | 14.3 | 9 | 64.3 | 1 | 7.1 | 2 | 14.3 | Medium | |
| 11. Ou et al., 2008 | 1 | 7.1 | 6 | 42.9 | 3 | 21.4 | 4 | 28.6 | Unclear/high | |
| 12. De Giglio et al., 2007 | 2 | 14.3 | 10 | 71.4 | 2 | 14.3 | - | - | Medium | |
| 13. Hosaka et al., 2006 | 2 | 14.3 | 10 | 71.4 | 1 | 7.1 | 1 | 7.1 | Medium | |
* in vitro cellular test
Surface properties and cellular responses from in vitro and in vivo-animal model studies.
| AUTORS | EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE | SURFACE CHEMISTRY AFTER TREATMENT | SURFACE MORPHOLOGY OR FILM COMPOSITION | STRENGHT RESISTENCE: PULL-OUT, REMOVAL TORQUE, STABILITY. | BONE GROWN /CELL ADHESION | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ban et al. 1997 | Hydroxyapatite (HA)deposition | Basic elements of Apatite were present on the titanium surface. | HA surface only had Spherical particles of HA. Surface with HA electrochemically coated is covered by needle-like precipitates. | Higher strength resistance from pull-out test was observed in the titanium treated by electrochemical methods than the control samples, after 3 and 6 weeks of implantation | The formation of new bone was enhanced in the electrochemical treated surface compared to the control surfaces. | |
| Lamolle et al., 2009 | Hydrofluoric acid (HF) | Hydride, Fluoride and Oxide were present. | The oxide concentration was higher in the 0.001% HF at 30nm. Low concentration of HF increased hydrophobicity. | Implants modified by cathodic reduction with 0.01 vol % hydrofluoric acid showed the highest pull out strength (p< 0.05) followed by the 0.1vol%. | The concentrations of the fluoride and hydride in the titanium implant modified surfaces was correlated to the in vivo bone retention(r = 0.94). | |
| Lamolle et al., 2010 | Hydrofluoric acid (HF) | Hydride, Fluoride and Oxide were present. | Groups of implants with 0.001% and 0.01% HF showed the highest fluoride content at their surface structure | - | All experiment groups showed new peri-implant cortical bone, but implants treated with 0.01% HF showed higher osteocalcin, collagen-I and TRAP, revealing an advanced osseointegration process. Implants modified with 0.001% and 0.01% HF presented a statistically significant increased newly formed bone. Lower presence of blood was observed at the interface after removal of the implant in the groups of implants (0.001% and 0.01% HF). The control group scored higher LDH activity than all the test groups. | |
| Liang et al., 2014 | Pure brushite and modified brushite with 5%, 10%, and 20% Strontium (Sr) deposition | Basic elements of Brushite and Strontium were present on the titanium surface. | Brushite coating, presence of crystals, some arranged in clusters. Brushite coating containing 20% Sr showed an irregular surface morphology | Removal torque strength in 5% Sr and 10% Sr groups was significantly increased compared with the other three groups without cathodic treatment (p < 0.01) | After 24, 48, or 72h the number of the proliferating cells on the brushite-coated and Sr-doped brushite groups were higher than in the control group (p < 0.01), especially in the 10% Sr-doped coating. Modified surfaces with 5% and 10% Sr-doped brushite coatings were associated with increased 3D bone volume(p < 0.05), especially around the 10% Sr-doped brushite-coated implants. | |
| Tao et al., 2016 | Electrochemical deposition of Zinc(Zn), Strontium, Magnesium(Mg), and HA. | Coatings composed of hydroxyapatite containing 10% Zn, Mg and Sr ions on titanium. | - | Push-out force of group Sr-HA was significantly higher than that of groups Zn-HA and Mg-HA. Group Sr-HA showed the strongest effects on all micro-CT parameters (bone volume, trabecular thickness, connective density, trabecular number; trabecular separation) significantly (p<0.05). | After 12 weeks, new bone was formed. Within the circumference of marrow cavities of cortical bone, there were osteoblast-like cells, suggesting the beginning of new bone formation. There was more bone tissue on implant surfaces of Zn-HA, Mg-HA, Sr-HA-coated implants than in those of HA-coated. | |
| Young et al.,2009 | Electrochemical deposition of Magnesium, Phosphate | Magnesium, P, and Ti were identified in the composition. | The implants had moderate roughness of 0.7–1.4 mm. Oxidized implants had crystal structures consisting of a mixture of Anatase and rutile phase. | After 6 weeks of healing, all surfaces increased implant stability but it was higher in the modified surfaces than in the control surfaces. | New bone formation occurred in all surfaces, but it was increased in the Mg-MP implant group. | |
| Zhang et al., 2009 | Solution of calcium phosphates as medium | Titanium hydride was identified. Calcium and Phosphates were present on the titanium surface. | Metal surface were rough and had fine granular appearance. A thin layer of CaP (100nm thick) was deposited and had higher resistance to displacement. | Bone growth was fast in the electrochemical-treated specimens. After 4weeks bone formation and the amount of bone in electrochemical titanium and stainless steel samples were significantly higher than that in control without cathodic treatment (p < 0.01). | ||
| Franck et al., 2014 | Enamel Matrix Derivate (EMD) deposition | EMD was coated. Characteristic elements were identified in the composition. | Electrochemical EMD coated samples presented larger spherical structures attached to the surface. Sandblasted and acid-etched revealed nano-nodules and small spherical structures on the surface. | No cytotoxicity was observed in any group. For Electrochemical treated groups the expression of Coll-1 mRNA levels and the alkaline phosphatase activity was significantly higher compared to control. | ||
| Xing et al., 2014 | Acids (oxalic: OA)as medium | Presence of Hydride. Characteristic elements were identified in the composition. | OA created the roughest surface and thin layers. | At day 3, cells grown in all groups faster than in the control. The proliferation rate on acetic acid was significantly higher than others groups. Hydrogen amount on the surfaces was correlated with proliferation rate at day 3 (r 5 0.973, p <0.05). At day 6, proliferation of cells was higher in tartaric and control groups only. | ||
| Huang et al., 2013 | Hydroxyapatite (HA) deposition | Deposition of HA. HA surface was mainly composed of O, P, Ca, and Si. Si content was 7.77 wt.%±0.39. | HA and HA/CS films formed uniform layers on the Ti substrate. The HA/CS coating had a porous structure and the HA coating had a dense surface structure. | After 7 days, cell proliferation on the HA/Cathodic coated surfaces was higher (p < 0.05) than those on HA coating. | ||
| Ou et al., 2008 | Electrochemical treatment | Promote the presence of Hydride. O2 concentration following electrochemical treatment was higher than in polished Ti. | Titania film with cathodic pre-treatment and anodization was thicker than other groups Porosity was higher in ACTi samples | Cathodic pre-treatment followed by anodization at 24h significantly more cells attached than controls (cathodic and anodization treatment only). Cells on AC-Ti were more spread out and had more, longer filopods than other groups. | ||
| De Giglio et al., 2007 | Pyrrole-3-acetic acid, 4-fluoro-phenylalanine deposition | Promote deposition of 4-fluoro-phenylalanine modified PPy-3-acetic film. | Cell Adhesion, growth, and viability of osteoblast-like cells onto PPy-3-acetic modified titanium substrates were comparable to the control groups. Cell phenotype was similar in all groups. | |||