{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0171875, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005729166666666666, 'mean_word_length': 5.468013468013468, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A systematic review of the influence of different titanium surfaces on proliferation, differentiation and protein synthesis of osteoblast-like MG63 cells.

OBJECTIVES
Titanium is the standard material for dental and orthopaedical implants. The good biocompatibility has been proven in many experimental and clinical investigations. Different titanium topographies were tested in vitro using different cell culture models. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate and summarize the medical/dental literature to assess on which kind of titanium surface structure the osteoblast-like osteosarcoma cells MG63 show the best proliferation and differentiation rate, and the best protein synthesis.


METHODS
A systematic search was carried out using different on-line databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, International Poster Journal), supplemented by handsearch in selected journals and by examination of the bibliographies of the identified articles. Inclusion and exclusion criterias were applied when considering relevant articles. Studies which met the inclusion criteria were included and data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer.


RESULTS
The search yielded 348 references. Nine articles referring to nine different studies were relevant to our question. Additionally 8 less relevant articles were identified. It was found that regularly textured surfaces of pure titanium with R(a) values (average roughness) of around 4 mum are well-accepted by MG63 cells.


CONCLUSIONS
The surfaces and culture conditions vary widely. Therefore it is still difficult to recommend one particular surface. It seems that there are no differences in cell proliferation and differentiation on surfaces treated by blasting and etching. Standardization in fabrication and size of the different test surfaces as well as homogeneity in culture times and plating densities should be aspects for future research.