## 3 Results  
A single examiner (MR) performed the data extraction. The aforementioned data were collected and organized into tables. As this review focused on the clinical performance of the UV pretreatment, the in vitro studies utilizing monolayer cell culture approaches were not all included. The selected papers were those that focused on the mono-layer cell culture studies involving osteoblast cells of varying origin (tabulated in Table 2). In most monolayer studies, the specimen used were disc-shaped titanium or titanium alloys [44; 72]. Common cells used were bone marrow-derived osteoblasts of Sprague-Dawley rats [44; 72]. The osteoblasts showed profound actin projection and lamellipodia-like processes on UV treated titanium or titanium alloy surfaces. Using the term 'animal studies' or 'animal models' in combination with the above keywords, the search yielded twenty-five (25) articles relating to photofunctionalization of the titanium surface. There was no expert discussion and consensus in selecting articles reporting the effect of photofunctionalization or UV light treatment in animal models. The articles selected were categorized based on the size of the animals used (Table 1 for rats, Table 3 for rabbits, and Table 4), in which either BIC, bone volume, or bone mineral density data are available. In rats, implants were specifically placed in the femur (Table 1), whereas in rabbits, the implants were either placed in the femur or in the tibia (Table 3). In canines and minipigs, the implants were placed either in the maxilla or mandible (Table 3). All implants placed in tibias and femurs were unloaded. In detail, most authors reported significantly increased BIC [57; 71; 73; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 79], push-in values [40; 80; 81; 82; 83], bone volume [72; 84], or bone mineral [85; 86] were noted in all animal models studied for photofunctionalized groups disregarding implant surface modifications/topography. The differences were insignificant for both UV-treated and non-UV-treated reported in four animal studies [87; 88; 89; 90]. The literature search did not yield any randomized controlled clinical trials or prospective studies relevant to photofunctionalization other than seven (7) retrospective studies including a case series and case report. There was one (1) clinical trial on the photofunctionalization of titanium in orthopedic patients [91]. No direct data analysis was attempted, as clinical case reports do not provide an adequate source of evidence. The reported data of clinical retrospective studies and case reports are seen and summarized in Table 5.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Species** & **Studies** & **No. of Animals** & **No. of Specimens** & **Surface Treatment** & **Source of UV Light** & **Boseoseoseintegration** \\  & **(Author)** & **(Sites)** & **Type of Specimens** & & **(Light Treatment)** & **(Light Treatment)** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Spargue-Dawley rats} & [PERSON] et al. 2009 [57] & Not stated (femar) & 4 cylindrical titanium rod & One exhibited machined & UV exposure up to 48 h under \\  & & & & & \\  & &  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Species** & **Studies** & **No. of Animals** & **No. of Specimens** & **Surface Treatment** & **Source of UV Light** & **Bone Ossceintegration** \\  & **(Authors)** & **(Size)** & **Type of Specimens** & **(Size)** & **(Size)** & **(Size)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Sprague [PERSON] rats} & [PERSON] et al. 2016 & \multirow{4}{*}{Not stated (former)} & 24 implants (1 mm in length) & 24 implants were acid etched with doses (7\% sulfidic acid (212°C for 75 s). & Exposure to UV light for 12 & The average push-in value of \\  & [PERSON] et al. 2016 & & diameter, 2 mm in length) & All implants were etched in 67\% sulfidic acid at 120°C for & min using a photo device & photomot  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Species** & **Studies** & **No. of Animals** & **No.