Abstract
C-range Ultraviolet (UVC) mercury (Hg)-vapor lamps have shown the successful decontamination of hydrocarbons and antimicrobial effects from titanium surfaces. This study focused on surface chemistry modifications of titanium dental implants by using two different light sources, Hg-vapor lamps and Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), so as to compare the effectivity of both photofunctionalization technologies. Two different devices, a small Hg-vapor lamp (λ = 254 nm) and a pair of closely placed LEDs (λ = 278 nm), were used to irradiate the implants for 12 min. X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) was employed to characterize the chemical composition of the surfaces, analysing the samples before and after the lighting treatment, performing a wide and narrow scan around the energy peaks of carbon, oxygen and titanium. XPS analysis showed a reduction in the concentration of surface hydrocarbons in both UVC technologies from around 26 to 23.4 C at.% (carbon atomic concentration). Besides, simultaneously, an increase in concentration of oxygen and titanium was observed. LED-based UVC photofunctionalization has been suggested to be as effective a method as Hg-vapor lamps to remove the hydrocarbons from the surface of titanium dental implants. Therefore, due to the increase in worldwide mercury limitations, LED-based technology could be a good alternative decontamination source.
Highlights
Titanium (Ti) dental implants have been widely used as prosthesis anchors since Brånemark and other colleagues discovered osseointegration [1,2]
The X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) measurements of all detected elements before UVC light treatment were shown in terms of relative atom concentrations (C at.%)
Two varying devices based on different UVC sources were used to assess the successful decontamination of hydrocarbons from the surfaces of titanium dental implants, which is by far considered the most causal element related to the biological ageing and bacterial attachment
Summary
Titanium (Ti) dental implants have been widely used as prosthesis anchors since Brånemark and other colleagues discovered osseointegration [1,2] Despite their high survival rate predictability of up to 98%, the total implant area covered by bone (or bone–implant contact percentage) remains far from the ideal 100% [3,4,5,6]. The bacteria are capable of colonizing the implant surface, causing peri-implant mucosa inflammation and progressive loss of supporting bone, and leading to its failure [11]. In this context, the presence of optimal mucosa thickness, with a good soft-tissue sealing, can reduce risk of inflammation and biofilms’ formation [12]. In order to achieve a good soft-tissue sealing and osseointegration, fibroblasts, osteoblasts, and other cells, need to adhere to the surface of the implant
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
