Elsevier

Injury

Volume 36, Issue 3, Supplement, November 2005, Pages S20-S27
Injury

Bone substitutes: An update

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2005.07.029Get rights and content

Summary

Autograft is considered ideal for grafting procedures, providing osteoinductive growth factors, osteogenic cells, and an osteoconductive scaffold. Limitations, however, exist regarding donor site morbidity and graft availability. Allograft on the other hand, posses the risk of disease transmission. Synthetic graft substitutes lack osteoinductive or osteogenic properties. Composite grafts combine scaffolding properties with biological elements to stimulate cell proliferation and differentiation and eventually osteogenesis. We present here an overview of bone grafts and graft substitutes available for clinical applications.

Introduction

Bone graft is the second most common transplantation tissue, with blood being by far the commonest.7, 65 More than 500,000 bone grafting procedures are happening annually in the United States and 2.2 million worldwide in order to repair bone defects in orthopaedics, neurosurgery and dentistry.42, 47

Furthermore, the treatment of posttraumatic skeletal complications, such as delayed unions, non-unions, malunions, are challenging.57 Bone-grafting is usually required to stimulate bone-healing. In addition, spinal fusions, filling defects following removal of bone tumors and several congenital diseases may require bone grafting. Several methods of reconstructing bone defects are available namely using autograft, allograft, demineralised bone matrix (DBM), hydroxyapatitecalcium phosphate (CP, TCP), autologous bone marrow aspirates, bone morphogenetic proteins, and several other related growth factors (VEGF, PDGF, etc.).

The gold standard of bone-grafting is harvesting autologous cortical and cancellous bone from the iliac crest. All other forms of bone grafting have disadvantages compared to autograft and as such their use is sub-optimal. Technological evolution along with better understanding of bone-healing biology, however, have lead to the development of several bone graft substitutes that are currently available to the orthopaedic surgeons.62, 66

Section snippets

Bone graft characteristics

Osteogenesis, osteoinduction, and osteoconduction are the three essential elements of bone regeneration along with the final bonding between host bone and grafting material which is called osteointegration. Osteoprogenitor cells living within the donor graft, may survive during transplantation, could potentially proliferate and differentiate to osteblasts and eventually to osteocytes. These cells represent the “osteogenic” potential of the graft.20 “Osteoinduction” on the other hand is the

Autograft

Autologous bone, the golden standard of bone grafting, provides optimal osteoconductive, osteoconductive, and osteogenic properties.20 Iliac crest is the most frequently chosen donor site as it provides easy access to good quality and quantity cancellous autograft. Harvesting autologous bone from the iliac crest has, however, several downsides as it lengthens the overall surgical procedure and is usually complicated by residual pain and cosmetic disadvantages.1, 22, 62, 66 Furthermore, it may

Allograft

Allograft is the most frequently chosen bone substitute and is regarded as the surgeon's second option.14 Its use has increased 15-fold the past decade and accounts for about one-third of bone grafts performed in the United States.7 The current increasing availability of allograft tissue has made it possible to manufacture customised types, such as dowels, strips, and chips.55 Allograft bone has more limitations in the essential bone graft characteristics described earlier and yields more

Bone-graft substitutes

A bone-graft substitute should be: osteoconductive, osteoinductive, biocompatible, bio-resorbable, structurally similar to bone, easy to use, and cost-effective.

A large number of bone-graft alternatives are currently commercially available for orthopaedic use. They vary in composition, mechanism of action, and special characteristics. Table 3 shows a variety of bone-graft-substitute materials. It is important to note that they all are osteoconductive, offer various levels of structural support,

Demineralised bone matrix

Demineralised bone matrix can be produced through decalcification of cortical bone. Then, is processed in order to reduce the potential for infection and immunogenic host response. The material produced, the DBM, retains the trabecular collagenous structure of the original tissue and can serve as a biologic osteoconductive scaffold despite the loss of structural strength once contributed by the pre-existing bone mineral.43 Bone demineralisation does not eliminate all bone growth factors, which

Synthetic bone substitutes

Considerable advances have been made with synthetic alternatives over the past decade. These materials may soon provide results comparable to autograft (Table 3). Until recently, synthetics were not in favour compared to autograft and allograft. Synthetic bone grafts at most possess only two of the four characteristics of an ideal bone graft material (osteointegration, osteoconduction). Ideally synthetic bone graft substitutes should be biocompatible, show minimal fibrotic reaction, undergo

Ceramics

Ceramics are synthetic scaffolds made from calcium phosphate that have been used in dentistry and in orthopaedics since the 1980s.3, 32, 64 Tricalcium phosphate ceramic has a stoichiometry similar to amorphous bone precursors, whereas hydroxyapatite has a stoichiometry similar to bone mineral. Ceramics do not exist naturally, but they have been shown to induce a biologic response similar to that of bone. Alone, synthetic ceramics posses no osteogenic or osteoinductive properties, and

Bioactive glasses

Bioactive glasses are hard, solid (non-porous), materials consisting of, calcium, phosphorus, and silicon-dioxide (silicate, the main component). By varying the proportions of sodium oxide, calcium oxide, and silicon dioxide, all range of forms can be produced from soluble to non-resorbable. They possess both osteointegrative and osteoconductive properties. A mechanically strong bond between bioactive glass and bone forms eventually through hydroxyapatite crystals similar to that of bone.30

Biologic/synthetic composite grafts

One of the most promising emerging surgical options may be the use of a “composite graft” that contains osteogenic cells and osteoinductive growth factors along with a synthetic osteoconductive matrix. Composite materials being tested in preclinical and clinical trials may exhibit functionality comparable to autograft and allograft. Composite synthetic grafts offer an alternative that can potentially unite the three essential bone-forming properties in more controlled and effective combinations

Conclusion

Fresh autogenous cancellous and, to a lesser degree, cortical bone are the gold standard graft materials that, ideally, all other bone substitutes should compare their performances. Bone defects bring the dilemma of graft choice to the orthopaedic surgeon. It is sensible to assume that not all bone graft substitutes will perform the same way. The variety of the available scaffolds in industry and their combinations (composite grafts), represent not only the different clinical needs and

References (67)

  • L.M. Jonck et al.

    The biological compatibility of glass ionomer cement in joint replacement

    Clin Mater

    (1989)
  • S.N. Khan et al.

    Clinical applications of bone graft substitutes

    Orthop Clin North Am

    (2000)
  • I. Kinnunen et al.

    Reconstruction of orbital floor fractures using bioactive glass

    J Craniomaxillofac Surg

    (2000)
  • K. Lewandrowski et al.

    Bioresorbable bone graft substitutes of different osteoconductivities: an istologic evaluation of osteointegration of poly (propylene glycol-co-fumaric acid) based cement implants in rats

    Biomaterials

    (2000)
  • S.C. Ludwig et al.

    Osteoinductive bone graft substitutes for spinal fusion: a basic science summary

    Orthop Clin North Am

    (1999)
  • R.R. Pelker et al.

    Biomechanical aspects of bone autografts and allografts

    Orthop Clin North Am

    (1987)
  • H.S. Sandhu et al.

    Bone grafting for spinal fusion

    Orthop Clin North Am

    (1999)
  • E.D. Arrington et al.

    Complications of iliac crest bone graft harvesting

    Clin Orthop

    (1996)
  • J.C. Banwart et al.

    Iliac crest bone graft harvest donor site morbidity: a statistical evaluation

    Spine

    (1995)
  • M. Bohner

    Calcium orthophosphates in medicine: from ceramics to calcium phosphate cements

    Injury

    (2000)
  • M. Bonfiglio et al.

    Immunological responses to bone

    Clin Orthop

    (1972)
  • G.D. Bos et al.

    Immune responses of rats to frozen bone allografts

    J Bone Joint Surg Am

    (1983)
  • K.H. Bridwell et al.

    Posterior spinal fusion supplemented with only allograft bone in paralytic scoliosis. Does it work?

    Spine

    (1994)
  • S.P. Bruder et al.

    The effect of implants loaded with autologous mesenchymal stem cells on the healing of canine segmental bone defects

    J Bone Joint Surg Am

    (1998)
  • R.W. Bucholz et al.

    Interporous hydroxyapatite as a bone graft substitute in tibial plateau fractures

    Clin Orthop

    (1989)
  • R.W. Bucholz

    Development and clinical use of coral-derived hydroxyapatite bone graft substitutes

  • G. Carter

    Harvesting and implanting allograft bone

    AORN J

    (1999)
  • R. Cavagna et al.

    Macroporous calcium phosphate ceramic: a prospective study of 106 cases in lumbar spinal fusion

    J Long Term Eff Med Implants

    (1999)
  • M.W. Chapman et al.

    Treatment of acute fractures with a collagen-calcium phosphate graft material: a randomized clinical trial

    J Bone Joint Surg Am

    (1997)
  • E.U. Conrad et al.

    Transmission of the hepatitis-C virus by tissue transplantation

    J Bone Joint Surg Am

    (1995)
  • P.D. Constantino et al.

    Synthetic bone graft substitutes

    Otolaryngol Clin North Am

    (1994)
  • C.J. Damien et al.

    Bone graft and bone graft substitutes: a review of current technology and applications

    J Appl Biomater

    (1991)
  • C.A.F. Dodd et al.

    Allograft versus autograft bone in scoliosis surgery

    J Bone Joint Surg Br

    (1988)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text