ArticleOdontology2026
Evaluation of the effects of ultraviolet photofunctionalization on titanium surfaces: in vitro and in vivo study.
Article in Odontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of UV photofunctionalization on cellular behavior and implant stability using in vitro assays and clinical trial. For that, in vitro tests were performed on smooth titanium disks (machined only) and on disks treated with sandblasted acid-etched (SA) (irradiated or not with UV light for 30 min) to evaluate wettability, roughness, cytotoxicity, cell proliferation, adhesion, and type I collagen production. Subsequently, a clinical study was conducted, in which ten patients were randomly assigned to receive implants that were sandblasted acid-etched and irradiated with UV light (pre-treated for 5 min) on one side, and non-irradiated implants on the contralateral side. Implant stability was assessed biweekly using the Osstell device (ISQ values) up to the 14th week. Here, our data revealed that contact angle analyses showed that (SA) exhibited the highest contact angle among all groups (p < 0.05), whereas UV irradiation significantly decreased it (p < 0.05). The combination of (SA) and UV irradiation exhibited the greatest surface roughness (p < 0.05). Cell viability did not show any significant differences at any time point (p > 0.05), while cell proliferation was significantly increased in the (SA) and UV-irradiated group at 48 h (p < 0.05). Type I collagen levels did not differ statistically among the groups. In the clinical study, UV-irradiated implants demonstrated greater stability at measurement intervals 3, 4, and 6 (p < 0.05). In vitro UV irradiation improved wettability and surface roughness properties without affecting cellular activity. Clinically, the use of UV light resulted in superior implant stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41920403What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.