Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Mar 14:23:9.
doi: 10.1186/s40824-019-0157-y. eCollection 2019.

Review of bone graft and bone substitutes with an emphasis on fracture surgeries

Hoon-Sang Sohn  1 , Jong-Keon Oh  2
Affiliations
Review

Review of bone graft and bone substitutes with an emphasis on fracture surgeries

Hoon-Sang Sohn et al. Biomater Res. .

Abstract

Background: Autogenous bone graft is the gold standard bone graft material. However, due to limitations of supply and morbidity associated with autograft harvest, various bone substitutes have been considered. This article aims to review the properties of the bone graft and various bone substitutes currently available in orthopedic surgery.

Main body: Synthetic bone substitutes consist of hydroxyapatite, tricalcium phosphate, calcium sulfate, or a combination of these minerals. Synthetic porous substitutes share several advantages over allografts, including unlimited supply, easy sterilization, and storage. However, they also have some disadvantages, such as brittle properties, variable rates of resorption, and poor performance in some clinical conditions. Recently, attention has been drawn to osteoinductive materials, such as demineralized bone matrix and bone morphogenetic proteins.

Conclusion: Despite tremendous efforts toward developing autograft alternatives, a single ideal bone graft substitute has not been developed. The surgeon should understand the properties of each bone graft substitute to facilitate appropriate selection in each specific clinical situation.

Keywords: Bone graft; Bone morphogenetic protein; Bone substitutes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Not applicableNot applicableThe authors declare that they have no competing interest.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Greenwald AS, Boden SD, Goldberg VM, Khan Y, Laurencin CT, Rosier RN. Bone-graft substitutes: facts, fictions, and applications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(Suppl 2 Pt 2):98–103. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200100022-00007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baldwin P, Li DJ, Auston DA, Mir HS, Yoon RS, Koval KJ. Autograft, allograft, and bone graft substitutes: clinical evidence and indications for use in the setting of orthopaedic trauma surgery. J Orthop Trauma. 2019. 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001420 [Epub ahead of print]. - PubMed
    1. Billow D, Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Saleh A, Siqueira MB, Marinello P, et al. The reamer-irrigator-aspirator system: a review. Surg technol int. 2016;26:287–294. - PubMed
    1. Goulet JA, Senunas LE, DeSilva GL, Greenfield ML. Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;339:76–81. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199706000-00011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pollock R, Alcelik I, Bhatia C, Chuter G, Lingutla K, Budithi C, et al. Donor site morbidity following iliac crest bone harvesting for cervical fusion: a comparison between minimally invasive and open techniques. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(6):845–852. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0648-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed