This review analyzes the literature of bone grafts and introduces tissue engineering as a strategy in this field of orthopedic surgery. We evaluated articles concerning bone grafts; analyzed characteristics, advantages, and limitations of the grafts; and provided explanations about bone-tissue engineering technologies. Many bone grafting materials are available to enhance bone healing and regeneration, from bone autografts to graft substitutes; they can be used alone or in combination. Autografts are the gold standard for this purpose, since they provide osteogenic cells, osteoinductive growth factors, and an osteoconductive scaffold, all essential for new bone growth. Autografts carry the limitations of morbidity at the harvesting site and limited availability. Allografts and xenografts carry the risk of disease transmission and rejection. Tissue engineering is a new and developing option that had been introduced to reduce limitations of bone grafts and improve the healing processes of the bone fractures and defects. The combined use of scaffolds, healing promoting factors, together with gene therapy, and, more recently, three-dimensional printing of tissue-engineered constructs may open new insights in the near future.

Healing and regeneration of large bone defects leading to non-unions is a great concern in orthopedic surgery. Since auto- and allografts have limitations, bone tissue engineering and regenerative medicine (TERM) has attempted to solve this issue. In TERM, healing promotive factors are necessary to regulate the several important events during healing. An ideal treatment strategy should provide osteoconduction, osteoinduction, osteogenesis, and osteointegration of the graft or biomaterials within the healing bone. Since many materials have osteoconductive properties, only a few biomaterials have osteoinductive properties which are important for osteogenesis and osteointegration. Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) are potent inductors of the osteogenic and angiogenic activities during bone repair. The BMPs can regulate the production and activity of some growth factors which are necessary for the osteogenesis. Since the introduction of BMP, it has added a valuable tool to the surgeon's possibilities and is most commonly used in bone defects. Despite significant evidences suggesting their potential benefit on bone healing, there are some evidences showing their side effects such as ectopic bone formation, osteolysis and problems related to cost effectiveness. Bone tissue engineering may create a local environment, using the delivery systems, which enables BMPs to carry out their activities and to lower cost and complication rate associated with BMPs. This review represented the most important concepts and evidences regarding the role of BMPs on bone healing and regeneration from basic to clinical application. The major advantages and disadvantages of such biologic compounds together with the BMPs substitutes are also discussed.

As the efficacy of PRP is dependent on various factors, the outcome of PRP therapy is variable and unpredictable in orthopedic patients. Therefore, it is still too soon to suggest PRP as the first line treatment option in complicated bone injuries such as LBDs and nonunions. However, combination of PRP with natural and synthetic biomaterials can enhance the effectiveness of PRP.

Introduction Bone tissue usually heals spontaneously, but in complicated conditions such as pathological fractures or those situations leading to large bone defects, the healing process fails. Therefore, it is still a challenge for orthopaedic surgeons to treat and reconstruct large bone defects, delayed unions and non-unions. A variety of therapeutic modalities have been developed to enhance the healing response and fill the bone defects. Different types of glycosaminoglycans, growth factors, stem cells, natural grafts (auto-, allo-or xenografts) and biologic-and synthetic-based tissue-engineered scaffolds are some of the examples. Nevertheless, these organic and synthetic materials and therapeutic agents have some significant limitations, and there are still no well-approved treatment modalities to pass all the expected requirements. Bone tissue engineering is a newer option than traditional grafts, which may overcome many limitations of the bone graft usage. To select an appropriate treatment strategy in achieving a successful and secure healing, more information concerning injuries of bones, their healing process and knowledge of the factors involved are required. Hence, this paper reviews how the bone fractures heal. It is hoped that this review will provide useful information to orthopaedic surgeons and investigators working in the field of bone healing. Conclusion There are many natural and synthetic biomaterials, but it is very difficult to treat large bone defects. Finding a composite graft has been very difficult. Development of techniques for bone tissue engineering has shown promise. All strategies show limitations; thus, we call for further studies pertaining to bone fracture healing to help us improve the bone healing methods.

Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) is the most commonly used filler material that lacks biological properties and osteoconductivity or osteoinductivity. Platelet gel (PG) is a typical source of growth factors, cytokines and molecules efficient for bone formation and remodeling. The aim of this study was to evaluate bone healing and regeneration of bone defect in rat model by combining PMMA with PG. A total of 50 defects were created in the diaphysis of the radii of 25 male Sprague-Dawley rats. These defects were randomly divided into five groups (n = 10 defects for each group) and treated by autograft, plain PMMA, PG and PMMA-PG or left untreated. The rats were examined clinically and radiologically during the experiment and also after euthanasia at the 8th post-operative week, the healed defects were evaluated by gross morphology, histopathology, histomorphometry, computed tomography, scanning electron microscopy and biomechanical testing. PG could function as efficiently as autograft in promoting bone healing of the radial bones. Additionally, bone formation, and densities of cartilaginous and osseous tissues in the defects treated with autograft, PG and PMMA-PG were more satisfactory than the untreated and PMMA treated defects. Compared with the PMMA-PG implant, more PMMA residuals remained in the defect area and induced more intense inflammatory reaction. In conclusion, addition of PG could improve the bone regenerative properties of PMMA bone cement compared with PMMA alone in vivo. Therefore, the PG-PMMA can be proposed as a promising option to increase regenerative potential of PMMA, particularly when it is used as fixator, filler or adhesive in the dentistry, neurosurgery and bone tissue engineering applications.