skip to main content
Language:

Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial?

Haugen, Håvard Jostein ; Lyngstadaas, Ståle Petter ; Rossi, Filippo ; Perale, Giuseppe

Journal of clinical periodontology, 2019-06, Vol.46 (S21), p.92-102 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial?
  • Author: Haugen, Håvard Jostein ; Lyngstadaas, Ståle Petter ; Rossi, Filippo ; Perale, Giuseppe
  • Subjects: Animals ; Biocompatible Materials ; Biological activity ; Biomedical materials ; Bone biomaterials ; bone graft ; bone graft substitute ; Bone grafts ; Bone remodeling ; Bone replacement grafts ; Bone Substitutes ; Bone Transplantation ; Cattle ; Composite materials ; deal biomaterial ; Decision making ; Dental restorative materials ; Dentistry ; Europe ; Heterografts ; Laboratories ; Maxillofacial ; Xenografts
  • Is Part Of: Journal of clinical periodontology, 2019-06, Vol.46 (S21), p.92-102
  • Notes: http://www.smartbonepep.eu/
    Funding Information
    Part of this work has been financed by EU Horizon2020 Eureka Eurostars Project – E19624 “Bio‐hybrid composite bone graft for paediatric bone regeneration”
    and the Research Council of Norway (grant no. 231530).
    ObjectType-Article-2
    SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
    ObjectType-Feature-3
    content type line 23
    ObjectType-Review-1
    NFR/231530
  • Description: Bovine xenograft materials, followed by synthetic biomaterials, which unfortunately still lack documented predictability and clinical performance, dominate the market for the cranio‐maxillofacial area. In Europe, new stringent regulations are expected to further limit the allograft market in the future. Aim Within this narrative review, we discuss possible future biomaterials for bone replacement. Scientific Rationale for Study Although the bone graft (BG) literature is overflooded, only a handful of new BG substitutes are clinically available. Laboratory studies tend to focus on advanced production methods and novel biomaterial features, which can be costly to produce. Practical Implications In this review, we ask why such a limited number of BGs are clinically available when compared to extensive laboratory studies. We also discuss what features are needed for an ideal BG. Results We have identified the key properties of current bone substitutes and have provided important information to guide clinical decision‐making and generate new perspectives on bone substitutes. Our results indicated that different mechanical and biological properties are needed despite each having a broad spectrum of variations. Conclusions We foresee bone replacement composite materials with higher levels of bioactivity, providing an appropriate balance between bioabsorption and volume maintenance for achieving ideal bone remodelling.
  • Publisher: United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
  • Language: English;Norwegian
Links
Back to results list
Go to Previous pagePrevious Result  6 NextGo to Next page

  • Implemented by: ABCD-USP USP   Social Network Logos: Freepik

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait

  • Searching for
  • inscope:(USP_VIDEOS),scope:("PRIMO"),scope:(USP_FISICO),scope:(USP_EREVISTAS),scope:(USP),scope:(USP_EBOOKS),scope:(USP_PRODUCAO),primo_central_multiple_fe
  • Show me what you have so far