Autograft, Allograft, and Bone Graft Substitutes: Clinical Evidence and Indications for Use in the Setting of Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] 7. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2006 Jan;3(1):49-57. doi: 10.1586/17434440.3.1.49. Bone graft substitutes. Laurencin C(1), Khan Y, El-Amin SF. Author information: (1)University of Virginia School of Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Biomedical Engineering & Chemical Engineering, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA. ctl3f@virginia.edu The current gold standard of bone grafts is the autograft since it possesses all the characteristics necessary for new bone growth, namely osteoconductivity, osteogenicity and osteoinductivity. However, the autograft has its limitations, including donor-site morbidity and supply limitations, hindering this as an option for bone repair. An extensive list of currently available alternatives to bone grafts is provided, along with a classification scheme that divides these bone graft substitutes into five groups depending on the primary material composition: allograft, cell, factor, ceramic and polymer. Of the bone graft substitutes listed, several are discussed in detail. Beyond the current state of the art, attention is paid to what lies ahead in the field of bone graft substitutes. Biodegradable composite structures and various new architectures are discussed, as are newly developed polymeric materials, with tissue engineering providing the platform for future directions within this discipline. DOI: 10.1586/17434440.3.1.49