Next Article in Journal
CD123-Targeted Nano-Curcumin Molecule Enhances Cytotoxic Efficacy in Leukemic Stem Cells
Previous Article in Journal
Recent Progress in the Energy Harvesting Technology—From Self-Powered Sensors to Self-Sustained IoT, and New Applications
Previous Article in Special Issue
Formation of Nanostructure during Replication of a Hierarchical Plant Surface
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nanomaterials
Volume 11
Issue 11
10.3390/nano11112977
nanomaterials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Carbon Nanomaterials Modified Biomimetic Dental Implants for Diabetic Patients

by
Renjini Vijay
1,2,
Jayanti Mendhi
1,2,
Karthika Prasad
1,3,
Yin Xiao
1,2,4,
Jennifer MacLeod
5,6,
Kostya (Ken) Ostrikov
2,5,6 and
Yinghong Zhou
1,2,4,*
1
School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
2
Centre for Biomedical Technologies, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
3
School of Engineering, College of Engineering and Computer Science, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia
4
The Australia-China Centre for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine (ACCTERM), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
5
School of Chemistry and Physics, Faculty of Science, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
6
Centre for Materials Science, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nanomaterials 2021, 11(11), 2977; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11112977
Submission received: 15 October 2021 / Revised: 27 October 2021 / Accepted: 1 November 2021 / Published: 5 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bionanotechnology and Nanobiotechnology: Biomimetics or Engineering Nature?)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Dental implants are used broadly in dental clinics as the most natural-looking restoration option for replacing missing or highly diseased teeth. However, dental implant failure is a crucial issue for diabetic patients in need of dentition restoration, particularly when a lack of osseointegration and immunoregulatory incompetency occur during the healing phase, resulting in infection and fibrous encapsulation. Bio-inspired or biomimetic materials, which can mimic the characteristics of natural elements, are being investigated for use in the implant industry. This review discusses different biomimetic dental implants in terms of structural changes that enable antibacterial properties, drug delivery, immunomodulation, and osseointegration. We subsequently summarize the modification of dental implants for diabetes patients utilizing carbon nanomaterials, which have been recently found to improve the characteristics of biomimetic dental implants, including through antibacterial and anti-inflammatory capabilities, and by offering drug delivery properties that are essential for the success of dental implants.

1. Introduction

Dental implants, which can be used to replace one or more lost teeth or to anchor dentures in the mouth, are an effective alternative to traditional dentures or bridgework for the restoration of missing teeth [1]. The success of osseointegration, the direct interface formed between implant and bone, with no intervention of soft tissues after implantation is crucial to its long-term survival [2,3,4,5]. Any disruption in this biological mechanism could have a detrimental effect on the therapy outcome [2]. Diabetes mellitus (DM), for example, can contribute to dental implant failure, as uncontrolled diabetes is associated with a tendency to develop peri-implantitis and poor osseointegration [2,6]. Studies show a strong correlation between diabetic patients and the incidence of peri-implant infection [6,7,8,9], as well as reduced osseointegration [10], as impaired glycemic control increases the release of toxic metabolites (advanced glycation end products AGEs) [11], and inflammatory cytokines interleukin 6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which lead to a slowed healing process for dental implants, and subsequent infection and implant failure (Figure 1) [12,13]. Therefore, the need to develop novel materials to enhance osseointegration, especially in diabetic patients, is clearly established.
Biomimetics is a relatively new discipline that uses notions from nature to create superior materials for use in a variety of applications, including healthcare devices [14,15]. By applying the lessons learned from the development and function of naturally occurring materials or structures, similar products have been synthesized to mimic their distinctive properties [16]. Since the early 1990s, the emphasis on nanoscience and nanotechnology has spurred interest in replicating nature through nanofabrication techniques for commercial purposes [17], including dentistry where biomimetics aims to restore the deformed dentition [14]. Dental implants with biomimetic characteristics improve osseointegration efficiency, and there are a number of examples from nature that are inspiring the way the dental implants are developed. Cicada wings, for example, have nanopatterns with antibacterial qualities [18,19,20], whereas other nature-inspired nanopatterns aid in the achievement of self-cleaning [21] and antibacterial properties [19], and will be examined in detail later. Cicada-inspired biomimetic materials do deliver better results than traditional implants though they are yet to be developed so as to provide antimicrobial action against Staphylococcus aureus [19], bacteria that can affect the immune response and cause peri-implant bone loss during the early stages of dental implant recovery [22,23]. Teixeira-Santos and colleagues established that a dental implant coated with carbon nanotubes, a carbon nanomaterial, have antibacterial characteristics against Staphylococcus aureus [23], which is significant because the size of a material effects its antibacterial properties [24]. Carbon nanotubes in some studies have been reported with a diameter of 0.7 nm [25,26], whereas cicada inspired materials have cone-shaped nanopillars with a diameter of 82–148 nm [27,28]. The surface area of a material rises as its size reduces, enhancing the substance’s ability to interact with and be taken up by living cells [29], which means the structure and properties of the materials used for modifying the implants play an important role in the success and longevity of a dental implant.
The unique chemical and physical characteristics, namely thermal, mechanical, electrical, optical, and structural features of carbon-based nanomaterials have sparked the interest of researchers for biological applications [30,31], and make them suitable for various dental applications (Table 1). Carbon-based nanoparticles like carbon nanodots, nano diamonds, graphene, and carbon nanotubes are applied broadly in many biomedical fields and for applications such as nanotherapeutics, biomedical imaging, and cancer therapy [32]. This review addresses the use of carbon in the development of dental materials, particularly biomimetic dental implants functionalized with carbon nanomaterials for local insulin delivery [33] to achieve antibacterial and osteogenesis properties for improved dental implant survival rates in diabetic patients [34].

2. Biomimetic Dental Implants

Biomimetic dental implants can be achieved by modifying the surface of an implant material [51]. Surface properties such as surface roughness are important factors governing the success of dental implants [52], and it is the intrinsically nanostructured surface features of the cicada [53,54,55], dragonfly [56,57], shark skin [57,58], gecko feet [21], taro [59,60,61], and lotus leaves [62,63] that are able to impart self-cleaning and antibacterial capabilities to dental implants [19]. Biomimetic dental implants have many advantages over ordinary implants; for example, modified surfaces or functionalized biomimetic dental implants can help increase antimicrobial action [19] by adding a functional group with antimicrobial properties [51]. Roughened surface structures have increased surface areas and can influence cell growth and differentiation, antimicrobial properties, and also improve specific protein interactions [64].

2.1. Bio-Inspired Patterns Used to Increase Antimicrobial and Antifouling Properties

Bacterial biofilm development on the transmucosal component of dental implants can induce persistent inflammation and implant failure [65,66]. The presence of high glucose levels in the saliva and blood as seen in diabetic patients induces poor neutrophil activity, tiny vessel damage, and neuropathy, further promoting bacterial growth and colonization [67,68,69]. Staphylococcus aureus, Enteric bacilli, and Candida albicans, as well as Prevotella nigrescens, Campylobacter rectus, Campylobacter rectus, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, particularly serogroup B, are the major species of bacteria resulting in peri-implantitis [70]. Infection plays a major role in peri-implantitis and the failure of dental implants for those with DM. Although the administration of post-operative antibiotics as well as an oral antimicrobial rinse can control peri-implantitis for uncontrolled diabetic patients [71], there is a lack of understanding about the choice and effectiveness of systemic antibiotic drug delivery [72,73], despite the number of preventive systemic antibiotic regimens proposed to reduce infections following dental implant implantation [74].

2.1.1. Insect-Inspired Patterns

Systemic antibiotic applications have drawbacks such as systemic toxicity [75], low bioavailability, and antibiotic resistance [74,76,77], making local antibiotic treatment a preferred method of drug administration [76]. Studies have shown many potential benefits from localized drug delivery for peri-implantitis [77,78,79]. Some of the localized drug delivery approaches applied in implants are the surface immobilization technique [80], controlled release of a drug from coated implants [81], and dental implants with internal channels. The development of smart biomimetic dental implants enhanced with carbon nanomaterials (CNMs) marks a turning point for numerous applications and therapies, particularly with the precise and timely release of medication [82].
Several studies have attempted to mimic the nanotexture of naturally occurring surfaces such as cicada [83], dragonfly wings [56], and modified gecko feet [84], in order to modify dental implants by creating an antibacterial surface. These structurally altered superhydrophobic surfaces have proven particularly appealing as stable antibacterial surfaces because their self-cleaning and water-resistant characteristics prevent the development and adherence of bacteria rather than immediately destroying them [85]. These superhydrophobic materials can minimize the adhesion force between bacteria and the solid surface of implants, providing an antifouling effect on the surface [86]. The development of microorganisms resistant to antimicrobial therapies [87,88] has made it difficult to treat infection in diabetic patients [89], so it is anti-infective biomimetic materials that demonstrate bacteriostatic or bactericidal properties, along with a pro-osteogenesis function mediated by nanostructured surfaces [90] that have piqued the curiosity of researchers. The gecko is famous for its bulbous toes, covered with hundreds of microscopic hairs known as setae, and capable of adhering to different surfaces because of its periodic array of hierarchical microscale setae [91]. The length of setae are 30–130 µm, which are divided into hundreds of nanoscale spatulas with a diameter of 200–500 nm [92], creating a bactericidal property against gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria [19]. By incorporating this nanostructure to modify dental implants, it is possible to achieve implant surfaces with bactericidal [19], antifouling, and super-hydrophobic properties [93].
The wings of cicadas are made of spiky, cone-shaped nanopillars [94] and show antibacterial activity [19] that when fabricated by nano-imprint lithography [95] and reactive ion etching [96] present an interesting antibacterial mechanism. When bacteria fall on a cicada wing, they contact the tips of nanopillars and move downwards. The cone shaped nanopillars stretch their membranes as the bacteria move, eventually breaking the bacterial membranes and killing the bacteria. Bacteria with a less stiff membrane structure are quickly stretched and destroyed, but those with a rigid structure can withstand the nanopillars for a longer period [97]. Ge and colleagues proved this disadvantage of cicada-inspired nanostructures [83]. Another nanostructural antibacterial agent is fluorine-doped hydroxyapatite (FHA). Hydroxyapatite, an important component of normal bones and teeth, provides stiffness to the structure. The cicada-inspired FHA nanopatterned surface is effective against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. Hydroxyapatite coatings help achieve better cellular proliferation as well as differentiation [98,99,100] and have proven beneficial for diabetic patients. For instance, a recent study reported that coating dental implants with nanostructured hydroxyapatite and silicon-based substitutes can improve osseointegration for the diabetic group [101].
Similarly, the dragonfly wing has a nanopillar structure [97]. The dragonfly surface is superhydrophobic with a 153° and above water contact angle [19,102]. Unlike the cicada, the protrusions are irregular and conical [58], and reported to be varying among different species with a range of 70 to 195 nm [19,103,104]. The dragonfly wing structures are active against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria [105] and exhibit both antibacterial and antifouling properties [106]. Hydrothermal synthesis [107] and reactive ion etching [93] are fabrication techniques that can produce effective antibacterial surfaces with the dragonfly pattern. Bhadra et al. generated hierarchically structured titanium nano-patterned arrays using hydrothermal synthesis followed by a high temperature treatment; these surfaces provided bactericidal effects and increased osseointegration [56]. The nano-wire arrays produced on titanium substrates were found to be comparable to the natural bactericidal nano-patterns seen on dragonfly wings [108]. Taller nanostructures begin to bend when gram-negative bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, are exposed to the nanostructure of dragonfly wings. Thereafter, bacterial cells adhere firmly to nanostructures because of the production of an extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) layer. Once the adhesion force is strong enough, the bacterial membranes break, causing the death of bacteria (Figure 2) [19]. Because it is effective for both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, this nanopattern will be a useful strategy for developing biomedical device surfaces.

2.1.2. Animal-Inspired Patterns

Shark skin also exhibits antifouling properties [58], which can prevent bacterial adhesion [104]. Shark skin has a complex surface structure pattern of placoid scales or dermal denticles. These denticles have a riblet-like form, and the surface of the concave grooves feature nanostructured protuberances. Studies using the antifouling action of the shark skin show how riblet ridges on the surface change the water flow near the surface, helping to reduce drag on the body [109,110,111,112]. Previous research addressed other plausible pathways for antifouling abilities including epidermal mucus, which, like antimicrobial peptides, functions as a barrier for bacteria and hence has antibacterial properties. The microtopography of the shark skin prevents microbes from settling on the skin. Approaches for creating an artificial surface with shark skin characteristics include micro molding and vacuum casting [19]. Chien and colleagues recently reported that Staphylococcus aureus showed no surface attachment on a biomimetic shark skin pattern, but Escherichia coli demonstrated the reverse behavior in the early stages. Though Escherichia coli manifested surface attachment in the early stages, the pattern inhibited the biofilms from growing further [58].

2.1.3. Plant-Inspired Patterns

The micro or nanopatterns on the leaves of lotus and taro plants with antifouling, super-hydrophobic, and self-cleaning characteristics are a growing source of inspiration and motivation for researchers to imitate their behaviors [113]. The micro elliptical bumps, coated with hierarchical waxy nanoscale epicuticular crystals 10–30 µm in diameter, make the surface hydrophobic. The antibacterial activity of lotus and taro leaves can also be attributed to a physicochemical interaction between the bacteria and the leaf surface where dirt and bacteria adhere to the water droplets rather than the surface [19].

2.2. Bio-Inspired Patterns Used to Increase Osseointegration

The effects of surface roughness on bacteria are controversial, with some stating that surface roughness helps in bacterial attachment and, others claiming the opposite [114,115,116]. Materials with increased surface roughness and surface free energy have higher super-hydrophobic characteristics [117], and it is the air entrapment phenomena on roughened surfaces that might explain this relationship [118]. When the roughened surface comes in contact with a fluid, the Cassie-Baxter state can be achieved, i.e., air is enclosed in the craters/valleys of the roughened surface [119]. The bacteria-containing medium should first wet the surface of the bacteria to promote bacterial adherence to the surface. Bacterial attachment is reduced when surface wetting of the bacteria is hindered by the hydrophobic surface by air entrapment during the first hour of contact [120]. Recent research has demonstrated that the mussel-inspired polydopamine (PDA) would help create surface roughened titanium implants [121] and improve osseointegration [122], which is essential for implant longevity in diabetes patients. Because of its exceptional characteristics, mussel-inspired PDA has emerged as a potential chemical for attaching synthetic and biological molecules or creating an adhesive layer onto different surfaces for biomedical and nanotechnology applications [123]. Mussels have a highly adhesive property, a result of mussel foot proteins released during sticky development in the mussel byssus adhesive plaque, which enables them to withstand the high shear stress of water flow. These foot proteins include 3,4-dihydroxy-L-phenylalanine (DOPA) and lysine amino acids, leading to the idea that the co-existence of catechol (DOPA) and amine (lysine) groups may be critical for generating robust adhesion [119]. PDA, which contains both catechol and amine groups [124] is used as a coating on various implant surfaces [125]. Su et al. used PDA and graphene oxide to coat titanium implants, which improved surface roughness, graphene oxide binding, cell survival, and osteogenic characteristics [126]. Another study on titanium implants used PDA as a coating to explain the creation of an efficient multifunctional surface that can fight off bacteria and support the reduction of oral biofilm-associated infections [66]. It is the mussel-inspired PDA that acts as a binding agent and aids the achievement of antibacterial characteristics while simultaneously promoting osseointegration. PDA also helps enhance the formation of hydroxyapatite and can modify nanoparticles used as drug carriers [127]. A recent study was conducted on a titanium implant covered with PDA to immobilize certain growth factors such as basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) and bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) to promote cell migration, further accelerating wound healing and the formation of new bone around the implant [128]. Aside from bioinspired materials, several studies have been conducted to employ various materials to improve the osseointegration of dental implants (Table 2). Among these studies, Yang and colleagues reported that even under DM circumstances, the titanium dioxide nanotubes (TNT) surface showed good biocompatibility and pro-osteogenic activity in vitro and in vivo by producing less reactive oxygen species (ROS). The TNT surface offered a greater antioxidant ability by producing more total superoxide dismutase (SOD) to balance the ROS expression, therefore alleviating the inhibition of osteogenesis in high-glucose situations [129]. Additionally, gold nanoparticles coupled with microRNA 204 (miR204) inhibitor distributed in poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) solution were employed in a recent study to boost the osteogenic capacity of bone mesenchymal stromal cells. The administration of anatgomiR204-conjugated gold nanoparticles restored miR204 misexpression and promoted osteogenesis in diabetic rats [130]. Similarly increasing the surface roughness of an implant can lead to increased osseointegration because of the increased area for cell attachment to the implant surface and can improve peri-implant bone wound healing [131].

3. The Delivery of Insulin to Improve Dental Implants for Diabetic Patients

Patients with poorly controlled diabetes have delayed osseointegration following implantation [10], whereas insulin plays a vital role in wound healing and the success of dental implants in diabetic patients [140]. In both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, the topical application of insulin in a sustained release manner helps improve wound healing by faster wound contraction and re-epithelization without affecting normal blood glucose levels [33,141,142] According to a recent study, 10 units of topical insulin are safe without changing blood glucose levels, suggesting its potential application in non-diabetic patients’ wounds. Furthermore, the study proposed that local insulin is acceptable for routine therapeutic usage in wound healing [143]. Kaur et al. discovered that silver nanoparticles with a sustained release of 50 μL insulin encouraged wound healing by regulating the balance of inflammatory cytokines at the wound site [144]. The systemic application of insulin can lead to an increased formation of granulation tissues and new vessels [33] with a similar result seen with the topical application of insulin on titanium discs. Malekzadach et al. coated the titanium discs with insulin to investigate the release of insulin immobilized on the discs, and the subsequent biological effects on the osteoblast-like cells. That study demonstrated the controlled release of insulin is beneficial for the mineralization process [145]. The significance of insulin release is evident from a diabetes experimental model showing a decreased amount of bone-implant contact, which was restored with insulin therapy. Insulin promotes the production of the osteoblastic matrix directly and in diabetes experimental models, normoglycemia levels achieved by insulin therapy resulted in bone matrix development and osteoid production comparable to the control subjects. In order to achieve a better outcome with biomimetic dental implants for diabetic individuals, insulin delivery can be very beneficial [146].

4. Capabilities of Carbon Nanomaterials to Functionalize Biomimetic Implants

4.1. Drug Delivery Property

Carbon nanomaterials (CNMs) have unique features that make them one of the most promising nanomaterials in dentistry and are used as drugs themselves or gene carriers [147,148]. For example, graphene has been applied as a nano drug with a high pharmaceutical efficiency, and low toxicity of the CNMs and anti-inflammatory properties have been achieved by combining CNMs with different drugs, proteins, nucleic acids, and bioactive peptides [138].
CNMs carry drugs through the π-π (Pi) stacking interaction [149]. A variety of drugs have been delivered through π-π stacking interactions, methods that have been utilized in biological medication delivery, such as protein, nucleic acid, and cell delivery [150,151,152]. These π-π stacking interactions are non-covalent, do not change the structural or functional characteristics of medicines, and have been employed as a driving factor in loading medications into delivery systems and the creation of self-assembling systems [153]. Noncovalent interactions (Figure 3) such as hydrogen bonding [154], van der Waals force, and electrostatic, hydrophobic, or π-π interactions can physically confine drug molecules in delivery devices. CNMs coatings on biomimetic dental implants can therefore serve as a drug-releasing system [122], which eventually helps deliver insulin to the wound site, accelerating wound healing and osseointegration.

4.2. Antibacterial Property

Apart from their potential to serve as efficient drug delivery platforms, CNMs are also established antibacterial agents, most commonly via contact-mediated biocidal action [76]. The bacterial cell wall permeability is altered by the nanoparticles that are positively charged, which electrostatically attract the negatively charged bacterial cell membrane, resulting in its rupture, followed by leakage of intracellular organelles. Application of carbon nanoparticles against multidrug-resistant organisms is evolving, as they can disrupt the microbial membrane and its metabolic procedure more effectively than most other antibacterial materials used [155,156,157]. Drug carrying properties are achieved by the small particle size and high surface-to-volume ratio of the material, which is more effective in a nanocomposite form and not so by the antibiotic mechanisms, as is seen in conventional antimicrobial strategies [156,158]. For instance, nanocomposites and hybrid materials of Ag-metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) with carbon quantum dots (CQDs) have shown enhanced antibacterial activity against representative gram-positive (Bacillus subtilis) and gram-negative (Escherichia coli) bacterial strains due to nanorod-like morphological features and specific surface chemistry [158]. Carbon quantum dots are small carbon nanoparticles less than 10 nm in size [159,160,161]. Additionally, graphene nanocomposites have a greater ability against gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria, which is achieved by the ability of graphene to penetrate and cut the cell membrane, thereby damaging the bacteria [162]. Therefore, the coating of biomimetic dental implants with CNMs could be a promising strategy to prevent implant failure.

4.3. Anti-Inflammatory Property

The anti-inflammatory effects of dental implants are critical to their success in diabetic patients because peri-implantitis is the result of hyperglycemia-mediated inflammatory reaction [163]. CNMs have anti-inflammatory properties that can regulate immune cell activity and reduce the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines [164], and along with their large surface area and biocompatibility, help in their use as anti-inflammatory agent carriers [164]. A recent study evaluated the effects of graphene oxide (GO)-coated titanium surfaces on immune cell reaction and the subsequent osteogenesis of mesenchymal cells [126]. This study showed promising results in the immunoregulatory effect on osteogenesis and biocompatibility. In particular, there was an increase in the gene expression levels of osteogenic markers on the GO-coated titanium surface [126]. Therefore, it is postulated that functionalizing biomimetic dental implants with carbon nanomaterials aids in the prevention of implant failure and increases the success rate in diabetic patients (Figure 4).

5. Conclusions

The use of biomimetic dental implants may improve the success rate of implants for diabetic patients, and their antibacterial properties may assist with the prevention of peri-implantitis. The use of carbon nanostructures in drug delivery systems may enable these materials to efficiently carry drugs and mimic protein channels, helping to achieve a better result in wound healing and thereby reduce the failure rate of dental implants. It is the adaptability of nanomaterials, particularly with carbon nanomaterials for modifying biomimetic dental implants that can address issues like infections, delayed wound healing and osseointegration, create long-lasting dental implants, and contribute to the development of personalized dental therapy for diabetic and non-diabetic patients with delayed wound healing.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.Z. and R.V.; writing-original draft preparation, R.V., J.M. (Jayanti Mendhi) and Y.Z.; writing-reviewing and editing, Y.Z., K.P., J.M. (Jennifer MacLeod), K.O., Y.X.; supervision, Y.Z., J.M. (Jennifer MacLeod), K.O. and Y.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship grant number 1105035.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Bijoy John, Professor and Head of the Department of Oral Implantology and Periodontology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Science for providing the intra oral periapical images.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Misch, C.E. Dental Implant Prosthetics-E-Book; Elsevier Health Sciences: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  2. Naujokat, H.; Kunzendorf, B.; Wiltfang, J. Dental implants and diabetes mellitus—A systematic review. Int. J. Implant Dent. 2016, 2, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. On osseointegration in relation to implant surfaces. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2019, 21, 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  4. Souza, J.C.; Sordi, M.B.; Kanazawa, M.; Ravindran, S.; Henriques, B.; Silva, F.S.; Aparicio, C.; Cooper, L.F. Nano-scale modification of titanium implant surfaces to enhance osseointegration. Acta Biomater. 2019, 94, 112–131. [Google Scholar]
  5. Guglielmotti, M.B.; Olmedo, D.G.; Cabrini, R.L. Research on implants and osseointegration. Periodontol. 2000 2019, 79, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Alberti, A.; Morandi, P.; Zotti, B.; Tironi, F.; Francetti, L.; Taschieri, S.; Corbella, S. Influence of diabetes on implant failure and peri-implant diseases: A retrospective study. Dent. J. 2020, 8, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Monje, A.; Catena, A.; Borgnakke, W.S. Association between diabetes mellitus/hyperglycaemia and peri-implant diseases: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2017, 44, 636–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Bazli, L.; Chahardehi, A.M.; Arsad, H.; Malekpouri, B.; Jazi, M.A.; Azizabadi, N. Factors influencing the failure of dental implants: A Systematic Review. J. Compos. Compd. 2020, 2, 18–25. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lorusso, F.; Postiglione, F.; Delvecchio, M.; Rapone, B.; Scarano, A. The impact of diabetes in implant oral rehabilitations: A bibliometric study and literature review. Acta Med. 2020, 36, 3333. [Google Scholar]
  10. Javed, F.; Romanos, G.E. Impact of diabetes mellitus and glycemic control on the osseointegration of dental implants: A systematic literature review. J. Periodontol. 2009, 80, 1719–1730. [Google Scholar]
  11. Singh, V.P.; Bali, A.; Singh, N.; Jaggi, A.S. Advanced glycation end products and diabetic complications. Korean J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2014, 18, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. De Oliveira, P.G.F.P.; Bonfante, E.A.; Bergamo, E.T.; de Souza, S.L.S.; Riella, L.; Torroni, A.; Jalkh, E.B.B.; Witek, L.; Lopez, C.D.; Zambuzzi, W.F. Obesity/Metabolic Syndrome and Diabetes Mellitus on Peri-implantitis. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2020, 31, 596–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Jiao, H.; Xiao, E.; Graves, D.T. Diabetes and its effect on bone and fracture healing. Curr. Osteoporos. Rep. 2015, 13, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Suresh Kumar, N.; Padma Suvarna, R.; Chandra Babu Naidu, K.; Banerjee, P.; Ratnamala, A.; Manjunatha, H. A review on biological and biomimetic materials and their applications. Appl. Phys. A 2020, 126, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Upadhyay, A.; Pillai, S.; Khayambashi, P.; Sabri, H.; Lee, K.T.; Tarar, M.; Zhou, S.; Harb, I.; Tran, S.D. Biomimetic Aspects of Oral and Dentofacial Regeneration. Biomimetics 2020, 5, 51. [Google Scholar]
  16. Goswami, S. Biomimetic dentistry. J. Oral Res. Rev. 2018, 10, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sheeparamatti, B.; Sheeparamatti, R.; Kadadevaramath, J. Nanotechnology: Inspiration from nature. IETE Tech. Rev. 2007, 24, 5–8. [Google Scholar]
  18. Pogodin, S.; Hasan, J.; Baulin, V.A.; Webb, H.K.; Truong, V.K.; Nguyen, T.H.P.; Boshkovikj, V.; Fluke, C.J.; Watson, G.S.; Watson, J.A. Biophysical model of bacterial cell interactions with nanopatterned cicada wing surfaces. Biophys. J. 2013, 104, 835–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Jaggessar, A.; Shahali, H.; Mathew, A.; Yarlagadda, P.K. Bio-mimicking nano and micro-structured surface fabrication for antibacterial properties in medical implants. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2017, 15, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Li, X. Bactericidal mechanism of nanopatterned surfaces. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18, 1311–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Xu, Q.; Zhang, W.; Dong, C.; Sreeprasad, T.S.; Xia, Z. Biomimetic self-cleaning surfaces: Synthesis, mechanism and applications. J. R. Soc. Interface 2016, 13, 20160300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Minkiewicz-Zochniak, A.; Jarzynka, S.; Iwańska, A.; Strom, K.; Iwańczyk, B.; Bartel, M.; Mazur, M.; Pietruczuk-Padzik, A.; Konieczna, M.; Augustynowicz-Kopeć, E. Biofilm Formation on Dental Implant Biomaterials by Staphylococcus aureus Strains Isolated from Patients with Cystic Fibrosis. Materials 2021, 14, 2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Teixeira-Santos, R.; Gomes, M.; Gomes, L.C.; Mergulhão, F.J. Antimicrobial and anti-adhesive properties of carbon nanotube-based surfaces for medical applications: A systematic review. Iscience 2020, 24, 102001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Da Silva, B.L.; Abuçafy, M.P.; Manaia, E.B.; Junior, J.A.O.; Chiari-Andréo, B.G.; Pietro, R.C.R.; Chiavacci, L.A. Relationship between structure and antimicrobial activity of zinc oxide nanoparticles: An overview. Int. J. Nanomed. 2019, 14, 9395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Meyyappan, M.; Delzeit, L.; Cassell, A.; Hash, D. Carbon nanotube growth by PECVD: A review. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2003, 12, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Saifuddin, N.; Raziah, A.; Junizah, A. Carbon nanotubes: A review on structure and their interaction with proteins. J. Chem. 2013, 2013, 676815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ivanova, E.P.; Hasan, J.; Webb, H.K.; Truong, V.K.; Watson, G.S.; Watson, J.A.; Baulin, V.A.; Pogodin, S.; Wang, J.Y.; Tobin, M.J. Natural bactericidal surfaces: Mechanical rupture of Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells by cicada wings. Small 2012, 8, 2489–2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Tobin, M.J.; Puskar, L.; Hasan, J.; Webb, H.K.; Hirschmugl, C.J.; Nasse, M.J.; Gervinskas, G.; Juodkazis, S.; Watson, G.S.; Watson, J.A. High-spatial-resolution mapping of superhydrophobic cicada wing surface chemistry using infrared microspectroscopy and infrared imaging at two synchrotron beamlines. J. Synchrotron Radiat. 2013, 20, 482–489. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Kang, S.; Herzberg, M.; Rodrigues, D.F.; Elimelech, M. Antibacterial effects of carbon nanotubes: Size does matter! Langmuir 2008, 24, 6409–6413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maiti, D.; Tong, X.; Mou, X.; Yang, K. Carbon-based nanomaterials for biomedical applications: A recent study. Front. Pharmacol. 2019, 9, 1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ku, S.H.; Lee, M.; Park, C.B. Carbon-based nanomaterials for tissue engineering. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2013, 2, 244–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bhattacharya, K.; Mukherjee, S.P.; Gallud, A.; Burkert, S.C.; Bistarelli, S.; Bellucci, S.; Bottini, M.; Star, A.; Fadeel, B. Biological interactions of carbon-based nanomaterials: From coronation to degradation. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2016, 12, 333–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Wang, J.; Xu, J. Effects of Topical Insulin on Wound Healing: A Review of Animal and Human Evidences. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. Targets Ther. 2020, 13, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Gaviria, L.; Salcido, J.P.; Guda, T.; Ong, J.L. Current trends in dental implants. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 40, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Karthikeyan, S.; Bhatlu, M.L.D.; Sukanya, K.; Jayan, N. Nanovaccination: Evolution and Review. J. Crit. Rev. 2020, 7, 971–975. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee, D.-K.; Kim, S.V.; Limansubroto, A.N.; Yen, A.; Soundia, A.; Wang, C.-Y.; Shi, W.; Hong, C.; Tetradis, S.; Kim, Y. Nanodiamond–gutta percha composite biomaterials for root canal therapy. ACS Nano 2015, 9, 11490–11501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Krok, E.; Balakin, S.; Jung, J.; Gross, F.; Opitz, J.; Cuniberti, G. Modification of titanium implants using biofunctional nanodiamonds for enhanced antimicrobial properties. Nanotechnology 2020, 31, 205603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chauhan, S.; Jain, N.; Nagaich, U. Nanodiamonds with powerful ability for drug delivery and biomedical applications: Recent updates on in vivo study and patents. J. Pharm. Anal. 2020, 10, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yen, A.; Zhang, K.; Daneshgaran, G.; Kim, H.-J.; Ho, D. A Chemopreventive Nanodiamond Platform for Oral Cancer Treatment. J. Calif. Dent. Assoc. 2016, 44, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Najeeb, S.; Khurshid, Z.; Agwan, A.S.; Zafar, M.S.; Alrahabi, M.; Qasim, S.B.; Sefat, F. Dental applications of nanodiamonds. Sci. Adv. Mater. 2016, 8, 2064–2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Park, C.; Park, S.; Lee, D.; Choi, K.S.; Lim, H.-P.; Kim, J. Graphene as an enabling strategy for dental implant and tissue regeneration. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2017, 14, 481–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Cheng, X.; Wan, Q.; Pei, X. Graphene family materials in bone tissue regeneration: Perspectives and challenges. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 289. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Guo, S.; Lu, Y.; Wan, X.; Wu, F.; Zhao, T.; Shen, C. Preparation, characterization of highly dispersed reduced graphene oxide/epoxy resin and its application in alkali-activated slag composites. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 105, 103424. [Google Scholar]
  44. Guazzo, R.; Gardin, C.; Bellin, G.; Sbricoli, L.; Ferroni, L.; Ludovichetti, F.S.; Piattelli, A.; Antoniac, I.; Bressan, E.; Zavan, B. Graphene-based nanomaterials for tissue engineering in the dental field. Nanomaterials 2018, 8, 349. [Google Scholar]
  45. Nizami, M.Z.I.; Takashiba, S.; Nishina, Y. Graphene oxide: A new direction in dentistry. Appl. Mater. Today 2020, 19, 100576. [Google Scholar]
  46. Abdallah, B.; Elhissi, A.M.; Ahmed, W.; Najlah, M. Carbon nanotubes drug delivery system for cancer treatment. In Advances in Medical and Surgical Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 313–332. [Google Scholar]
  47. Szymański, T.; Mieloch, A.A.; Richter, M.; Trzeciak, T.; Florek, E.; Rybka, J.D.; Giersig, M. Utilization of Carbon Nanotubes in Manufacturing of 3D Cartilage and Bone Scaffolds. Materials 2020, 13, 4039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Subramani, K.; Pandruvada, S.; Puleo, D.; Hartsfield, J.; Huja, S. In vitro evaluation of osteoblast responses to carbon nanotube-coated titanium surfaces. Prog. Orthod. 2016, 17, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Pei, B.; Wang, W.; Dunne, N.; Li, X. Applications of Carbon Nanotubes in Bone Tissue Regeneration and Engineering: Superiority, Concerns, Current Advancements, and Prospects. Nanomaterials 2019, 9, 1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Martins-Júnior, P.; Alcântara, C.; Resende, R.; Ferreira, A. Carbon nanotubes: Directions and perspectives in oral regenerative medicine. J. Dent. Res. 2013, 92, 575–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mozetič, M. Surface modification to improve properties of materials. Materials 2019, 12, 441. [Google Scholar]
  52. Matos, G.R.M. Surface roughness of dental implant and osseointegration. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 2021, 20, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  53. Chen, Y.-C.; Huang, Z.-S.; Yang, H. Cicada-wing-inspired self-cleaning antireflection coatings on polymer substrates. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 25495–25505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Oh, J.; Yin, S.; Dana, C.E.; Hong, S.; Roman, J.K.; Jo, K.D.; Chavan, S.; Cropek, D.; Alleyne, M.; Miljkovic, N. Cicada-inspired self-cleaning superhydrophobic surfaces. J. Heat Transf. 2019, 141, 100905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Diu, T.; Faruqui, N.; Sjöström, T.; Lamarre, B.; Jenkinson, H.F.; Su, B.; Ryadnov, M.G. Cicada-inspired cell-instructive nanopatterned arrays. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 7122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Bhadra, C.M.; Truong, V.K.; Pham, V.T.; Al Kobaisi, M.; Seniutinas, G.; Wang, J.Y.; Juodkazis, S.; Crawford, R.J.; Ivanova, E.P. Antibacterial titanium nano-patterned arrays inspired by dragonfly wings. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 16817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Hasan, J.; Raj, S.; Yadav, L.; Chatterjee, K. Engineering a nanostructured “super surface” with superhydrophobic and superkilling properties. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 44953–44959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Chien, H.-W.; Chen, X.-Y.; Tsai, W.-P.; Lee, M. Inhibition of biofilm formation by rough shark skin-patterned surfaces. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2020, 186, 110738. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  59. Wang, L.; Xia, M.; Wang, D.; Yan, J.; Huang, X.; Luo, J.; Xue, H.-G.; Gao, J.-F. Bioinspired Superhydrophobic and Durable Octadecanoic Acid/Ag Nanoparticle-Decorated Rubber Composites for High-Performance Strain Sensors. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 7245–7254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hasan, J.; Crawford, R.J.; Ivanova, E.P. Antibacterial surfaces: The quest for a new generation of biomaterials. Trends Biotechnol. 2013, 31, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Luo, L.; Zhou, Y.; Xu, X.; Shi, W.; Hu, J.; Li, G.; Qu, X.; Guo, Y.; Tian, X.; Zaman, A. Progress in construction of bio-inspired physico-antimicrobial surfaces. Nanotechnol. Rev. 2020, 9, 1562–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liu, Y.; Chen, X.; Xin, J.H. Super-hydrophobic surfaces from a simple coating method: A bionic nanoengineering approach. Nanotechnology 2006, 17, 3259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xu, S.; Wang, Q.; Wang, N. Chemical fabrication strategies for achieving bioinspired superhydrophobic surfaces with micro and nanostructures: A review. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2021, 23, 2001083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Al-Zubaidi, S.M.; Madfa, A.A.; Mufadhal, A.A.; Aldawla, M.A.; Hameed, O.S.; Yue, X.-G. Improvements in Clinical Durability From Functional Biomimetic Metallic Dental Implants. Front. Mater. 2020, 7, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mendhi, J.; Asgari, M.; Ratheesh, G.; Prasadam, I.; Yang, Y.; Xiao, Y. Dose controlled nitric oxide-based strategies for antibacterial property in biomedical devices. Applied Materials Today 2020, 19, 100562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mendhi, J.; Ramachandra, S.S.; Prasadam, I.; Ivanovski, S.; Yang, Y.; Xiao, Y. Endogenous nitric oxide-generating surfaces via polydopamine-copper coatings for preventing biofilm dispersal and promoting microbial killing. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2021, 128, 112297. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ahmad, R.; Haque, M. Oral Health Messiers: Diabetes Mellitus Relevance. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. Targets Ther. 2021, 14, 3001–3015. [Google Scholar]
  68. Li, S.; Yi, G.; Peng, H.; Li, Z.; Chen, S.; Zhong, H.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Z.; Deng, Q.; Fu, M. How ocular surface microbiota debuts in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2019, 9, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Barik, S.; Barik, N.; Mahapatra, A.; Lenka, S.; Rathore, K. Impact of Glycemic Level in Type 2 Diabeties. Indian J. Public Health Res. Dev. 2019, 10, 1203–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Persson, G.R.; Renvert, S. Cluster of bacteria associated with peri-implantitis. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2014, 16, 783–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Eskow, C.C.; Oates, T.W. Dental implant survival and complication rate over 2 years for individuals with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2017, 19, 423–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Pulluri, P.; Mallappa, J.; Karibasappa, S.N.; Mehta, D.S. Management of peri-implantitis: Remedy for the malady. Int. J. Oral Health Sci. 2017, 7, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Abd-Ul-Salam, H. Peri-implantitis. In Innovative Perspectives in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 47–59. [Google Scholar]
  74. Esposito, M.; Grusovin, M.G.; Worthington, H.V. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Antibiotics at dental implant placement to prevent complications. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013, CD004152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Leekha, S.; Terrell, C.L.; Edson, R.S. General principles of antimicrobial therapy. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2011, 86, 156–167. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Wychowański, P.; Starzyńska, A.; Adamska, P.; Słupecka-Ziemilska, M.; Sobocki, B.K.; Chmielewska, A.; Wysocki, B.; Alterio, D.; Marvaso, G.; Jereczek-Fossa, B.A.; et al. Methods of topical administration of drugs and biological active substances for dental implants—A narrative review. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Toledano, M.; Osorio, M.T.; Vallecillo-Rivas, M.; Toledano-Osorio, M.; Rodríguez-Archilla, A.; Toledano, R.; Osorio, R. Efficacy of local antibiotic therapy in the treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2021, 113, 103790. [Google Scholar]
  78. Prathapachandran, J.; Suresh, N. Management of peri-implantitis. Dent. Res. J. 2012, 9, 516–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bhatavadekar, N.B.; Gharpure, A.S. The Graft Infusion Technique (GIT) for Treatment of Peri-Implantitis Defects: Case Series. J. Dent. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Thomsen, T.; Klok, H.-A. Chemical Cell Surface Modification and Analysis of Nanoparticle-Modified Living Cells. ACS Appl. Biomater. 2021, 4, 2293–2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Barik, A.; Chakravorty, N. Targeted drug delivery from titanium implants: A review of challenges and approaches. In Trends in Biomedical Research; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  82. Makvandi, P.; Josic, U.; Delfi, M.; Pinelli, F.; Jahed, V.; Kaya, E.; Ashrafizadeh, M.; Zarepour, A.; Rossi, F.; Zarrabi, A. Drug delivery (nano) platforms for oral and dental applications: Tissue regeneration, infection control, and cancer management. Adv. Sci. 2021, 8, 2004014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ge, X.; Zhao, J.; Esmeryan, K.D.; Lu, X.; Li, Z.; Wang, K.; Ren, F.; Wang, Q.; Wang, M.; Qian, B. Cicada-inspired fluoridated hydroxyapatite nanostructured surfaces synthesized by electrochemical additive manufacturing. Mater. Des. 2020, 193, 108790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Narayana, P.; Srihari, P. Biofilm resistant surfaces and coatings on implants: A review. Mater. Today Proc. 2019, 18, 4847–4853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Francolini, I.; Vuotto, C.; Piozzi, A.; Donelli, G. Antifouling and antimicrobial biomaterials: An overview. Apmis 2017, 125, 392–417. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Zhu, H.; Guo, Z.; Liu, W. Adhesion behaviors on superhydrophobic surfaces. Chem. Commun. 2014, 50, 3900–3913. [Google Scholar]
  87. Khatoon, Z.; McTiernan, C.D.; Suuronen, E.J.; Mah, T.-F.; Alarcon, E.I. Bacterial biofilm formation on implantable devices and approaches to its treatment and prevention. Heliyon 2018, 4, e01067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Ribeiro, M.; Monteiro, F.J.; Ferraz, M.P. Infection of orthopedic implants with emphasis on bacterial adhesion process and techniques used in studying bacterial-material interactions. Biomatter 2012, 2, 176–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Chrcanovic, B.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Diabetes and oral implant failure: A systematic review. J. Dent. Res. 2014, 93, 859–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ishak, M.I.; Liu, X.; Jenkins, J.; Nobbs, A.H.; Su, B. Protruding nanostructured surfaces for antimicrobial and osteogenic titanium implants. Coatings 2020, 10, 756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sun, Y.; Guo, Z. Recent advances of bioinspired functional materials with specific wettability: From nature and beyond nature. Nanoscale Horiz. 2019, 4, 52–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Watson, G.S.; Green, D.W.; Schwarzkopf, L.; Li, X.; Cribb, B.W.; Myhra, S.; Watson, J.A. A gecko skin micro/nano structure—A low adhesion, superhydrophobic, anti-wetting, self-cleaning, biocompatible, antibacterial surface. Acta Biomater. 2015, 21, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zhang, X.; Wan, Y.; Ren, B.; Wang, H.; Yu, M.; Liu, A.; Liu, Z. Preparation of superhydrophobic surface on titanium alloy via micro-milling, anodic oxidation and fluorination. Micromachines 2020, 11, 316. [Google Scholar]
  94. Zhao, N.; Li, H.; Tian, C.; Xie, Y.; Feng, Z.; Wang, Z.; Yan, X.; Wang, W.; Yu, H. Bioscaffold arrays decorated with Ag nanoparticles as a SERS substrate for direct detection of melamine in infant formula. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 21771–21776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Zhang, G.; Zhang, J.; Xie, G.; Liu, Z.; Shao, H. Cicada wings: A stamp from nature for nanoimprint lithography. Small 2006, 2, 1440–1443. [Google Scholar]
  96. Ganjian, M.; Modaresifar, K.; Zhang, H.; Hagedoorn, P.-L.; Fratila-Apachitei, L.E.; Zadpoor, A.A. Reactive ion etching for fabrication of biofunctional titanium nanostructures. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 18815. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Jenkins, J.; Mantell, J.; Neal, C.; Gholinia, A.; Verkade, P.; Nobbs, A.H.; Su, B. Antibacterial effects of nanopillar surfaces are mediated by cell impedance, penetration and induction of oxidative stress. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1626. [Google Scholar]
  98. Fang, B.; Wan, Y.-Z.; Tang, T.-T.; Gao, C.; Dai, K.-R. Proliferation and osteoblastic differentiation of human bone marrow stromal cells on hydroxyapatite/bacterial cellulose nanocomposite scaffolds. Tissue Eng. Part A 2009, 15, 1091–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bartkowiak, A.; Zarzycki, A.; Kac, S.; Perzanowski, M.; Marszalek, M. Mechanical properties of different nanopatterned TiO2 substrates and their effect on hydrothermally synthesized bioactive hydroxyapatite coatings. Materials 2020, 13, 5290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Arcos, D.; Vallet-Regí, M. Substituted hydroxyapatite coatings of bone implants. J. Mater. Chem. B 2020, 8, 1781–1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Liu, L.; Wang, X.; Zhou, Y.; Cai, M.; Lin, K.; Fang, B.; Xia, L. The synergistic promotion of osseointegration by nanostructure design and silicon substitution of hydroxyapatite coatings in a diabetic model. J. Mater. Chem. B 2020, 8, 2754–2767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Song, H.N.; Webb, H.; Mahon, P.; Crawford, R.; Ivanova, E. Natural insect and plant micro-/nanostructured surfaces: An excellent selection of valuable templates with superhydrophobic and self-cleaning properties. Molecules 2014, 19, 13614–13630. [Google Scholar]
  103. Chien, C.-Y.; Chen, Y.-H.; Chen, R.-Y.; Yang, H. Dragonfly-Wing-Inspired Inclined Irregular Conical Structures for Broadband Omnidirectional Antireflection Coatings. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2019, 3, 789–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Selvakumar, R.; Karuppanan, K.K.; Pezhinkattil, R. Analysis on surface nanostructures present in hindwing of dragon fly (Sympetrum vulgatum) using atomic force microscopy. Micron 2012, 43, 1299–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Tripathy, A.; Sen, P.; Su, B.; Briscoe, W.H. Natural and bioinspired nanostructured bactericidal surfaces. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 248, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ivanova, E.P.; Linklater, D.P.; Aburto-Medina, A.; Le, P.; Baulin, V.A.; Nguyen, H.K.D.; Curtain, R.; Hanssen, E.; Gervinskas, G.; Ng, S.H. Antifungal versus antibacterial defence of insect wings. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 603, 886–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Afhea, J.A. A Study of Nanotextured Surface Production for Bactericidal Surfaces on Orthopaedic Implants Using the Hydrothermal Method. Ph.D. Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  108. Guillem-Marti, J.; Delgado, L.; Godoy-Gallardo, M.; Pegueroles, M.; Herrero, M.; Gil, F. Fibroblast adhesion and activation onto micro-machined titanium surfaces. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2013, 24, 770–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Liu, Y.; Gu, H.; Jia, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, R.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Q. Design and preparation of biomimetic polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) films with superhydrophobic, self-healing and drag reduction properties via replication of shark skin and SI-ATRP. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 356, 318–328. [Google Scholar]
  110. Damodaran, V.B.; Murthy, N.S. Bio-inspired strategies for designing antifouling biomaterials. Biomater. Res. 2016, 20, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Bixler, G.D.; Bhushan, B. Bioinspired rice leaf and butterfly wing surface structures combining shark skin and lotus effects. Soft Matter 2012, 8, 11271–11284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Peng, Y.L.; Lin, C.G.; Wang, L. The preliminary study on antifouling mechanism of shark skin. Adv. Mater. Res. 2009, 79–82, 977–980. [Google Scholar]
  113. Yarlagadda, T.; Sharma, S.; Yarlagadda, P.K.; Sharma, J. Recent developments in the Field of nanotechnology for development of medical implants. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 30, 544–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Zheng, S.; Bawazir, M.; Dhall, A.; Kim, H.-E.; He, L.; Heo, J.; Hwang, G. Implication of surface properties, bacterial motility, and hydrodynamic conditions on bacterial surface sensing and their initial adhesion. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021, 9, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Wu, S.; Altenried, S.; Zogg, A.; Zuber, F.; Maniura-Weber, K.; Ren, Q. Role of the surface nanoscale roughness of stainless steel on bacterial adhesion and microcolony formation. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 6456–6464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Di Cerbo, A.; Mescola, A.; Rosace, G.; Stocchi, R.; Rossi, G.; Alessandrini, A.; Preziuso, S.; Scarano, A.; Rea, S.; Loschi, A.R. Antibacterial Effect of Stainless Steel Surfaces Treated with a Nanotechnological Coating Approved for Food Contact. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Kyzas, G.Z.; Mitropoulos, A.C. Advanced Low-Cost Separation Techniques in Interface Science; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  118. Khanmohammadi Chenab, K.; Sohrabi, B.; Rahmanzadeh, A. Superhydrophobicity: Advanced biological and biomedical applications. Biomater. Sci. 2019, 7, 3110–3137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Lan, X.; Zhang, B.; Wang, J.; Fan, X.; Zhang, J. Hydrothermally structured superhydrophobic surface with superior anti-corrosion, anti-bacterial and anti-icing behaviors. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2021, 624, 126820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Souza, J.G.S.; Bertolini, M.; Costa, R.C.; Cordeiro, J.M.; Nagay, B.E.; De Almeida, A.B.; Retamal-Valdes, B.; Nociti, F.H.; Feres, M.; Rangel, E.C.; et al. Targeting Pathogenic Biofilms: Newly Developed Superhydrophobic Coating Favors a Host-Compatible Microbial Profile on the Titanium Surface. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 10118–10129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Ding, Y.; Floren, M.; Tan, W. Mussel-inspired polydopamine for bio-surface functionalization. Biosurf. Biotribol. 2016, 2, 121–136. [Google Scholar]
  122. Santos, A.; Sinn Aw, M.; Bariana, M.; Kumeria, T.; Wang, Y.; Losic, D. Drug-releasing implants: Current progress, challenges and perspectives. J. Mater. Chem. B 2014, 2, 6157–6182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Ho, C.-C.; Ding, S.-J. Structure, properties and applications of mussel-inspired polydopamine. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 2014, 10, 3063–3084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Owji, N.; Mandakhbayar, N.; Gregory, D.A.; Marcello, E.; Kim, H.W.; Roy, I.; Knowles, J.C. Mussel Inspired Chemistry and Bacteria Derived Polymers for Oral Mucosal Adhesion and Drug Delivery. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021, 9, 663764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Lee, J.J.; Park, I.S.; Shin, G.S.; Lyu, S.K.; Ahn, S.G.; Bae, T.S.; Lee, M.H. Effects of polydopamine coating on the bioactivity of titanium for dental implants. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2014, 15, 1647–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Su, J.; Du, Z.; Xiao, L.; Wei, F.; Yang, Y.; Li, M.; Qiu, Y.; Liu, J.; Chen, J.; Xiao, Y. Graphene oxide coated titanium surfaces with osteoimmunomodulatory role to enhance osteogenesis. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2020, 113, 110983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Jin, A.; Wang, Y.; Lin, K.; Jiang, L. Nanoparticles modified by polydopamine: Working as “drug” carriers. Bioact. Mater. 2020, 5, 522–541. [Google Scholar]
  128. Wu, J.; Liu, Y.; Cao, Q.; Yu, T.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Q.; Yang, X. Growth factors enhanced angiogenesis and osteogenesis on polydopamine coated titanium surface for bone regeneration. Mater. Des. 2020, 196, 109162. [Google Scholar]
  129. Yang, J.; Zhang, H.; Chan, S.M.; Li, R.; Wu, Y.; Cai, M.; Wang, A.; Wang, Y. TiO2 nanotubes alleviate diabetes-induced osteogenetic inhibition. Int. J. Nanomed. 2020, 15, 3523. [Google Scholar]
  130. Liu, X.; Tan, N.; Zhou, Y.; Wei, H.; Ren, S.; Yu, F.; Chen, H.; Jia, C.; Yang, G.; Song, Y. Delivery of antagomiR204-conjugated gold nanoparticles from PLGA sheets and its implication in promoting osseointegration of titanium implant in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 7089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  131. Salvi, G.E.; Bosshardt, D.D.; Lang, N.P.; Abrahamsson, I.; Berglundh, T.; Lindhe, J.; Ivanovski, S.; Donos, N. Temporal sequence of hard and soft tissue healing around titanium dental implants. Periodontol. 2000 2015, 68, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Pellegrini, G.; Francetti, L.; Barbaro, B.; Del Fabbro, M. Novel surfaces and osseointegration in implant dentistry. J. Investig. Clin. Dent. 2018, 9, e12349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Dasmah, A.; Kashani, H.; Thor, A.; Rasmusson, L. Integration of fluoridated implants in onlay autogenous bone grafts—An experimental study in the rabbit tibia. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 42, 796–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Łukaszewska-Kuska, M.; Krawczyk, P.; Martyla, A.; Hędzelek, W.; Dorocka-Bobkowska, B. Hydroxyapatite coating on titanium endosseous implants for improved osseointegration: Physical and chemical considerations. Adv. Clin. Exp. Med. Off. Organ Wroclaw Med. Univ. 2018, 27, 1055–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Takanche, J.S.; Kim, J.-E.; Kim, J.-S.; Lee, M.-H.; Jeon, J.-G.; Park, I.-S.; Yi, H.-K. Chitosan-gold nanoparticles mediated gene delivery of c-myb facilitates osseointegration of dental implants in ovariectomized rat. Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2018, 46, S807–S817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Azzawi, Z.G.; Hamad, T.I.; Kadhim, S.A.; Naji, G.A.-H. Osseointegration evaluation of laser-deposited titanium dioxide nanoparticles on commercially pure titanium dental implants. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2018, 29, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Turky, R.N.; Jassim, R.K. The Electrophoretic Deposition of Nano Al2O3 and AgNO3 on CpTi Dental Implant (An in vitro and in vivo study). J. Baghdad Coll. Dent. 2016, 28, 41–47. [Google Scholar]
  138. Mohajeri, M.; Behnam, B.; Sahebkar, A. Biomedical applications of carbon nanomaterials: Drug and gene delivery potentials. J. Cell. Physiol. 2019, 234, 298–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  139. Zhou, C.; Hong, Y.; Zhang, X. Applications of nanostructured calcium phosphate in tissue engineering. Biomater. Sci. 2013, 1, 1012–1028. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  140. Khabadze, Z.; Sheroziia, M.; Generalova, J.; Nedashkovsky, A.; Hrytsenko, K.; Omarova, K.; Balashova, M.; Gracheva, A.; Mordanov, O. Features of Dental Implantation in Patients with Type II Diabetes. J. Int. Dent. Med. Res. 2021, 14, 376–383. [Google Scholar]
  141. Benni, J.M.; Patil, P.A. Non-diabetic clinical applications of insulin. J. Basic Clin. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2016, 27, 445–456. [Google Scholar]
  142. Liu, H.; Wang, J.; Deng, Y.; Zou, G.; Xu, J. Effects of topical insulin on wound healing: A meta-analysis of animal and clinical studies. Endocr. J. 2021, 68, 969–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Martínez-Jiménez, M.A.; Valadez-Castillo, F.J.; Aguilar-García, J.; Ramírez-GarciaLuna, J.L.; Gaitán-Gaona, F.I.; Pierdant-Perez, M.; Valdes-Rodríguez, R.; Sánchez-Aguilar, J.M. Effects of local use of insulin on wound healing in non-diabetic patients. Plast. Surg. 2018, 26, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Goel, V.; Kaur, P.; Singla, L.D.; Choudhury, D. Biomedical Evaluation of Lansium parasiticum Extract-Protected Silver Nanoparticles Against Haemonchus contortus, a Parasitic Worm. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2020, 7, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Malekzadeh, B.; Ransjo, M.; Tengvall, P.; Mladenovic, Z.; Westerlund, A. Insulin released from titanium discs with insulin coatings—Kinetics and biological activity. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2017, 105, 1847–1854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Sridharan, K.; Sivaramakrishnan, G. Efficacy of topical insulin in wound healing: A preliminary systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Wound Repair Regen. 2017, 25, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Ganazzoli, F.; Raffaini, G. Classical atomistic simulations of protein adsorption on carbon nanomaterials. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2019, 41, 11–26. [Google Scholar]
  148. Patila, M.; Chalmpes, N.; Dounousi, E.; Stamatis, H.; Gournis, D. Use of functionalized carbon nanotubes for the development of robust nanobiocatalysts. Methods Enzymol. 2020, 630, 263–301. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  149. Contreras, M.L.; Torres, C.; Villarroel, I.; Rozas, R. Molecular dynamics assessment of doxorubicin–carbon nanotubes molecular interactions for the design of drug delivery systems. Struct. Chem. 2019, 30, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Lather, V. Interaction and Surface Modification of Biomaterials with Cells Based on Carbon Nanomaterials. Appl. Chem. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Dhasaiyan, P.; Prasad, B.L.V. Self-Assembly of Bolaamphiphilic Molecules. Chem. Rec. 2017, 17, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Yoo, J.W.; Irvine, D.J.; Discher, D.E.; Mitragotri, S. Bio-inspired, bioengineered and biomimetic drug delivery carriers. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2011, 10, 521–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Zhuang, W.R.; Wang, Y.; Cui, P.F.; Xing, L.; Lee, J.; Kim, D.; Jiang, H.L.; Oh, Y.K. Applications of π-π stacking interactions in the design of drug-delivery systems. J. Control. Release 2019, 294, 311–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Majumder, M.; Stinchcomb, A.; Hinds, B.J. Towards mimicking natural protein channels with aligned carbon nanotube membranes for active drug delivery. Life Sci. 2010, 86, 563–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Anand, A.; Unnikrishnan, B.; Wei, S.-C.; Chou, C.P.; Zhang, L.-Z.; Huang, C.-C. Graphene oxide and carbon dots as broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents—A minireview. Nanoscale Horiz. 2019, 4, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Azizi-Lalabadi, M.; Hashemi, H.; Feng, J.; Jafari, S.M. Carbon nanomaterials against pathogens; the antimicrobial activity of carbon nanotubes, graphene/graphene oxide, fullerenes, and their nanocomposites. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2020, 284, 102250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Maas, M. Carbon nanomaterials as antibacterial colloids. Materials 2016, 9, 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  158. Travlou, N.A.; Algarra, M.; Alcoholado, C.; Cifuentes-Rueda, M.; Labella, A.M.; Lázaro-Martínez, J.M.; Rodríguez-Castellón, E.; Bandosz, T.J. Carbon quantum dot surface-chemistry-dependent Ag release governs the high antibacterial activity of Ag-metal–organic framework composites. ACS Appl. Biomater. 2018, 1, 693–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. El-Shabasy, R.M.; Elsadek, M.F.; Ahmed, B.M.; Farahat, M.F.; Mosleh, K.M.; Taher, M.M. Recent Developments in Carbon Quantum Dots: Properties, Fabrication Techniques, and Bio-Applications. Processes 2021, 9, 388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Liu, J.; Li, R.; Yang, B. Carbon dots: A new type of carbon-based nanomaterial with wide applications. ACS Cent. Sci. 2020, 6, 2179–2195. [Google Scholar]
  161. Amjadi, M.; Hallaj, T.; Asadollahi, H.; Song, Z.; de Frutos, M.; Hildebrandt, N. Facile synthesis of carbon quantum dot/silver nanocomposite and its application for colorimetric detection of methimazole. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2017, 244, 425–432. [Google Scholar]
  162. Tahriri, M.; Del Monico, M.; Moghanian, A.; Yaraki, M.T.; Torres, R.; Yadegari, A.; Tayebi, L. Graphene and its derivatives: Opportunities and challenges in dentistry. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2019, 102, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Dubey, R.K.; Gupta, D.K.; Singh, A.K. Dental implant survival in diabetic patients; review and recommendations. Natl. J. Maxillofac. Surg. 2013, 4, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  164. Soltani, R.; Guo, S.; Bianco, A.; Ménard-Moyon, C. Carbon Nanomaterials Applied for the Treatment of Inflammatory Diseases: Preclinical Evidence. Adv. Ther. 2020, 3, 2000051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nanomaterials 11 02977 g001 550
Figure 1. Effect of diabetes mellitus on dental implant failure. (A) Illustration and a representative intra oral periapical image (IOPA) of a diabetic patient who had received implant placement. This was taken immediately after the surgical placement of a dental implant. (B) Illustration and a follow up IOPA showing the failure of the dental implant due to infection. Image courtesy of Dr. Bijoy John, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Science, Kerala, India.
Figure 1. Effect of diabetes mellitus on dental implant failure. (A) Illustration and a representative intra oral periapical image (IOPA) of a diabetic patient who had received implant placement. This was taken immediately after the surgical placement of a dental implant. (B) Illustration and a follow up IOPA showing the failure of the dental implant due to infection. Image courtesy of Dr. Bijoy John, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Science, Kerala, India.
Nanomaterials 11 02977 g001
Nanomaterials 11 02977 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic of dragonfly wings showing: (A) representative SEM image of nanopillar structures (magnified 20,000 times); (B) antibacterial mechanism of implants modified with dragonfly nanopillars; (C) representative SEM image showing nanopillar tearing the bacteria and causing the death of Escherichia coli. Adapted with permission [56].
Figure 2. Schematic of dragonfly wings showing: (A) representative SEM image of nanopillar structures (magnified 20,000 times); (B) antibacterial mechanism of implants modified with dragonfly nanopillars; (C) representative SEM image showing nanopillar tearing the bacteria and causing the death of Escherichia coli. Adapted with permission [56].
Nanomaterials 11 02977 g002
Nanomaterials 11 02977 g003 550
Figure 3. Illustrating different non-covalent bonds in protein binding. (A) Pi-stacking noncovalent interaction helps proteins bind to graphene oxide; (B) Hydrophobic interaction helps increase protein stability and bioactivity; (C) Hydrogen bonding stabilizes the protein structure; (D) Electrostatic integration is important in protein folding, stability, flexibility, and function.
Figure 3. Illustrating different non-covalent bonds in protein binding. (A) Pi-stacking noncovalent interaction helps proteins bind to graphene oxide; (B) Hydrophobic interaction helps increase protein stability and bioactivity; (C) Hydrogen bonding stabilizes the protein structure; (D) Electrostatic integration is important in protein folding, stability, flexibility, and function.
Nanomaterials 11 02977 g003
Nanomaterials 11 02977 g004 550
Figure 4. Strategies to modify biomimetic dental implants for diabetic patients.
Figure 4. Strategies to modify biomimetic dental implants for diabetic patients.
Nanomaterials 11 02977 g004
Table
Table 1. Application of carbon nanoparticles in dentistry.
Table 1. Application of carbon nanoparticles in dentistry.
Carbon NanoparticlesDental Applications
Carbon nanodots
  • Dental robots for prevention of caries and gingival diseases [35]
Nano diamonds
  • Root canal as gutta percha [36]
  • Surface modification in dental implants [37]
  • Drug delivery system [38]
  • Oral cancer treatment [39]
  • Dental materials [40]
Graphene
  • Implants [41]
  • Guided bone regeneration [42]
  • Resins and cements [43]
  • Teeth whitening [44]
  • Electronic sensors [45]
Carbon nanotubes
  • Drug delivery system [46]
  • Alveolar ridge augmentation [47]
  • Screws and plates [48]
  • Guided bone regeneration [49]
  • Dental implants [50]
Table
Table 2. Different materials used for dental implant surface coating to improve osteointegration.
Table 2. Different materials used for dental implant surface coating to improve osteointegration.
Type of MaterialsAdvantage as Dental Implant Coating on Osseointegration
Titanium oxide nanotubes coated surface
  • Enhance implant osseointegration and inhibit osteoclast formation by activating bone cell viability in vitro [132]
Hydroxyapatite-coated surface
  • A significant increase in the amount of new bone growth, bone-to-implant contact, and surface roughness [133]
Hydroxyapatite and silicon-based coating
  • The coating modified by electrochemical method has been reported to have potentially beneficial chemical and physical properties that promote osteointegration by increasing the bone to implant contact [134]
Chitosan gold nanoparticle coating
  • Promote osseointegration of dental implants even in osteoporotic conditions [135]
Laser-deposited titanium dioxide nanoparticles
  • Significant improvement in bone integration, surface roughness values, and binding strength at the bone-implant interface [136]
Aluminium oxide nanoparticles
  • Promote the formation of new bone with Haversian canals, osteoblasts, and osteocytes [137]
Polydopamine coated dental implants
  • Helps in functionalising the implant material and increases the attachment of the bone cells and helps in wound healing [129,138]
Gold nanoparticles coupled with miR204
  • Restores miR204 misexpression, and increases the osteogenic activity of bone mesenchymal stromal cells [130]
Calcium phosphate
  • Accelerate implant fixation and bone healing response by increased bone-to-implant contact [139]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vijay, R.; Mendhi, J.; Prasad, K.; Xiao, Y.; MacLeod, J.; Ostrikov, K.; Zhou, Y. Carbon Nanomaterials Modified Biomimetic Dental Implants for Diabetic Patients. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2977. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11112977

AMA Style

Vijay R, Mendhi J, Prasad K, Xiao Y, MacLeod J, Ostrikov K, Zhou Y. Carbon Nanomaterials Modified Biomimetic Dental Implants for Diabetic Patients. Nanomaterials. 2021; 11(11):2977. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11112977

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vijay, Renjini, Jayanti Mendhi, Karthika Prasad, Yin Xiao, Jennifer MacLeod, Kostya (Ken) Ostrikov, and Yinghong Zhou. 2021. "Carbon Nanomaterials Modified Biomimetic Dental Implants for Diabetic Patients" Nanomaterials 11, no. 11: 2977. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11112977

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop