» Articles » PMID: 29899969

Bone Substitutes: a Review of Their Characteristics, Clinical Use, and Perspectives for Large Bone Defects Management

Overview
Journal J Tissue Eng
Date 2018 Jun 15
PMID 29899969
Citations 262
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Bone replacement might have been practiced for centuries with various materials of natural origin, but had rarely met success until the late 19th century. Nowadays, many different bone substitutes can be used. They can be either derived from biological products such as demineralized bone matrix, platelet-rich plasma, hydroxyapatite, adjunction of growth factors (like bone morphogenetic protein) or synthetic such as calcium sulfate, tri-calcium phosphate ceramics, bioactive glasses, or polymer-based substitutes. All these substitutes are not suitable for every clinical use, and they have to be chosen selectively depending on their purpose. Thus, this review aims to highlight the principal characteristics of the most commonly used bone substitutes and to give some directions concerning their clinical use, as spine fusion, open-wedge tibial osteotomy, long bone fracture, oral and maxillofacial surgery, or periodontal treatments. However, the main limitations to bone substitutes use remain the management of large defects and the lack of vascularization in their central part, which is likely to appear following their utilization. In the field of bone tissue engineering, developing porous synthetic substitutes able to support a faster and a wider vascularization within their structure seems to be a promising way of research.

Citing Articles

Design of novel graded bone scaffolds based on triply periodic minimal surfaces with multi-functional pores.

Lai R, Jiang J, Huo Y, Wang H, Bosiakov S, Lyu Y Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2025; 13:1503582.

PMID: 40013308 PMC: 11861085. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2025.1503582.


Oxidation-responsive, settable bone substitute composites for regenerating critically-sized bone defects.

Dos Santos R, Ahmed A, Hunn B, Addison A, Marques D, Bruce K Biomater Sci. 2025; .

PMID: 40012338 PMC: 11877281. DOI: 10.1039/d4bm01345j.


Optimizing β-TCP with E-rhBMP-2-infused fibrin for vertical bone regeneration in a mouse calvarium model.

Zhao K, Ono M, Mu X, Wang Z, Xie S, Yonezawa T Regen Biomater. 2025; 12:rbae144.

PMID: 39990519 PMC: 11846664. DOI: 10.1093/rb/rbae144.


Establishing rabbit critical-size bone defects to evaluate the bone-regeneration potential of porous calcium phosphate ceramics.

Lei W, Wu Y, Yuan H, He P, Wu J, Chen J Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2025; 12:1524133.

PMID: 39944476 PMC: 11813868. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1524133.


Low rate of healing and high incidence of complications in benign pediatric bone tumors treated with synthetic calcium sulfate-calcium phosphate bone graft.

Siddiqui A, Andras L, Myers A, Fan B, Bennett J, Illingworth K J Child Orthop. 2025; :18632521241310049.

PMID: 39896934 PMC: 11783415. DOI: 10.1177/18632521241310049.


References
1.
Burguera E, Xu H, Weir M . Injectable and rapid-setting calcium phosphate bone cement with dicalcium phosphate dihydrate. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2005; 77(1):126-34. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30403. View

2.
Tsuruga E, Takita H, Itoh H, Wakisaka Y, Kuboki Y . Pore size of porous hydroxyapatite as the cell-substratum controls BMP-induced osteogenesis. J Biochem. 1997; 121(2):317-24. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jbchem.a021589. View

3.
Pryor L, Gage E, Langevin C, Herrera F, Breithaupt A, Gordon C . Review of bone substitutes. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2011; 2(3):151-60. PMC: 3052658. DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1224777. View

4.
Epstein N . A preliminary study of the efficacy of Beta Tricalcium Phosphate as a bone expander for instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006; 19(6):424-9. DOI: 10.1097/00024720-200608000-00009. View

5.
Ostermann P, Seligson D, Henry S . Local antibiotic therapy for severe open fractures. A review of 1085 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995; 77(1):93-7. View