Allograft and Alloplastic Bone Substitutes: A Review of Science and Technology For the Craniomaxillofacial Surgeon

Abstract

Bone healing is a complex and multifactorial process. As such, there are numerous steps in the process to which intervention can be directed. This has given rise to many bone graft technologies that have been used to regenerate bone, creating, perhaps, a bewildering array of options. The options that surgeons have the most familiarity with are the ones that have been available the longest (i.e., autograft and allograft). Although useful for the widest spectrum of clinical applications, limitations of these grafts has prompted the development of new materials. Demineralized bone matrix formulations and synthetic ceramic materials are now being used with greater frequency. These biomaterials have demonstrated their usefulness in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery with their ability to augment and replace portions of the craniofacial skeleton. The purpose of this article is to describe and discuss the allograft and alloplastic bone grafting technologies so that the reader can consider each in the context of the others and gain a better appreciation for how each fits into the universe of existing and emerging treatments for bone regeneration.

Bone tissue engineering by using a combination of polymer/Bioglass composites with human adipose-derived stem cells

“…From a patient's perspective, the ultimate goal is replacement of their damaged/lost bone with autogenous material, harvested with minimal donor side morbidity. Traditionally, small defects are covered using autologous bone taken from iliac crest or ribs but large bony defects require autografts or allografts whose application is limited in terms of material availability and successful tissue in-growth (Eppley et al 2005). Furthermore, allografts carry the risk of disease transmission and host immune response (Horner et al 2010; Saha et al 2011;Yang et al 2006).…”

Exploring CBCT-Based DICOM Files. A Systematic Review on the Properties of Images Used to Evaluate Maxillofacial Bone Grafts

“…The gold standard evaluation method used to characterize the fate of the grafted bone over time has been a histological evaluation of a sample of the graft, but in the literature also other methods have been developed for this purpose, mainly biomechanical, biomolecular, and noninvasive imaging methods [3][4][5].…”

Bimaxillary protrusion with an atrophic alveolar defect: Orthodontics, autogenous chin-block graft, soft tissue augmentation, and an implant

“…Bone grafts may contain bone morphogenic proteins (BMPs), which are purported to have both bone conductive and inductive effects. 19 Autogenous bone grafts are the gold standard for alveolar ridge augmentation, and are classified as follows: (1) endochondral bone, such as iliac crest and long bones, and (2) intramembranous bone, such as mandibular ramus and symphysis. Kusiak et al, 20 found that intramembraneous (also referred to as membraneous) bone grafts show earlier revascularization compared to endochondral bone blocks.…”