4.5 Article

Current trends and future perspectives of bone substitute materials - From space holders to innovative biomaterials

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 40, Issue 8, Pages 706-718

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.01.002

Keywords

Bone replacement materials; Bone regeneration; Gene therapy; BMP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An autologous bone graft is still the ideal material for the repair of craniofacial defects, but its availability is limited and harvesting can be associated with complications. Bone replacement materials as an alternative have a long history of success. With increasing technological advances the spectrum of grafting materials has broadened to allografts, xenografts, and synthetic materials, providing material specific advantages. A large number of bone-graft substitutes are available including allograft bone preparations such as demineralized bone matrix and calcium-based materials. More and more replacement materials consist of one or more components: an osteoconductive matrix, which supports the ingrowth of new bone; and osteoinductive proteins, which sustain mitogenesis of undifferentiated cells; and osteogenic cells (osteoblasts or osteoblast precursors), which are capable of forming bone in the proper environment. All substitutes can either replace autologous bone or expand an existing amount of autologous bone graft. Because an understanding of the properties of each material enables individual treatment concepts this review presents an overview of the principles of bone replacement, the types of graft materials available, and considers future perspectives. Bone substitutes are undergoing a change from a simple replacement material to an individually created composite biomaterial with osteoinductive properties to enable enhanced defect bridging. (C) 2012 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available