ArticleBMC oral health2026
Surface activation of Ti6Al4V via vacuum versus conventional ultraviolet photofunctionalization: physicochemical and biological insights.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltraviolet (UV) photofunctionalization has been proposed as a means of removing hydrocarbon accumulation, which causes aging of titanium surfaces. Recent vacuum-UV (VUV) technologies exhibit faster, and more efficient surface activation compared with conventional UV protocols. The aim of the current work was to compare surface rejuvenation of grade V titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4 V) using conventional UV and VUV photofunctionalization with physicochemical analyses and biological assays.
methodsTi6Al4V discs were divided into four groups: Group I (control), Group II (12 min TheraBeam Super Osseo), Group III (15 min TheraBeam Affiny), and Group IV (20 s DIO UV Activator). Surface characteristics were evaluated with SEM, EDS, XRD, TOF-SIMS, and contact angle goniometry. Human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSC/TERT292) were cultured on discs. Cell viability (MTT), morphology (confocal microscopy, SEM), ALP activity, and osteogenic gene expression (Runx2, BSP, OPN, OCN) were assessed.
resultsAFM revealed no changes in surface roughness across groups. EDS, XRD, and TOF-SIMS confirmed progressive hydrocarbon removal with UV treatment, with Groups III and IV showing the lowest carbon levels (p < 0.001 vs. control). The contact angle decreased significantly from 76.9° ± 2.58 in controls to 26.9° ± 1.04 after VUV activation (p < 0.001). Biologically, UV treatment enhanced proliferation, cytoskeletal organization, ALP activity, and osteogenic gene expression, with Groups III and IV showing significantly greater responses compared with Group II (p < 0.001) though not significantly different from each other.
conclusionBoth conventional UV and VUV photofunctionalization rejuvenated titanium surfaces and improved osteogenic responses. VUV devices, particularly the DIO UV Activator, achieved equivalent activation in seconds compared with several minutes with conventional UV, suggesting a clinically advantageous, rapid chairside application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.