The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial?
Open accessAbstract
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 BG s 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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis
Karageorgiou, V., & Kaplan, D. (2005) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002 · Cited by 6,622
On the mechanisms of biocompatibility
Williams, D. F. (2008) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.04.023 · Cited by 2,772
Bone Tissue Engineering: Recent Advances and Challenges
Amini, A. R., Laurencin, C. T., & Nukavarapu, S. P. (2012) · Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1615/critrevbiomedeng.v40.i5.10 · Cited by 2,336
Recent advances in bone tissue engineering scaffolds
Bose, S., Roy, M., & Bandyopadhyay, A. (2012) · Trends in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.07.005 · Cited by 2,206
Murphy, C. M., Haugh, M. G., & O'Brien, F. J. (2010) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.063 · Cited by 2,056
TGF-β and BMP Signaling in Osteoblast Differentiation and Bone Formation
Chen, G., Deng, C., & Li, Y.-P. (2012) · International Journal of Biological Sciences · doi:10.7150/ijbs.2929 · Cited by 1,756
45S5 Bioglass®-derived glass–ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering
Chen, Q. Z., Thompson, I. D., & Boccaccini, A. R. (2006) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.11.025 · Cited by 1,241
Effects of mechanical forces on maintenance and adaptation of form in trabecular bone
Huiskes, R., Ruimerman, R., van Lenthe, G. H., & Janssen, J. D. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35015116 · Cited by 1,180
Mano, J. F., Silva, G. A., Azevedo, H. S., Malafaya, P. B., Sousa, R. A., Silva, S. S., Boesel, L. F., Oliveira, J. M., Santos, T. C., Marques, A. P., et al. (2007) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2007.0220 · Cited by 1,140
Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: from basic science to clinical practice
Campana, V., Milano, G., Pagano, E., Barba, M., Cicione, C., Salonna, G., Lattanzi, W., & Logroscino, G. (2014) · Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10856-014-5240-2 · Cited by 1,117
Cited by
Bone Grafts and Substitutes in Dentistry: A Review of Current Trends and Developments
Zhao, R., Yang, R., Cooper, P. R., Khurshid, Z., Shavandi, A., & Ratnayake, J. (2021) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules26103007 · Cited by 641
Inorganic nanomaterials with rapid clearance for biomedical applications
Wang, X., Zhong, X., Li, J., Liu, Z., & Cheng, L. (2021) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d0cs00461h · Cited by 509
Bone Tissue Engineering Scaffolds: Function of Multi‐Material Hierarchically Structured Scaffolds
Koushik, T. M., Miller, C. M., & Antunes, E. (2023) · Advanced Healthcare Materials · doi:10.1002/adhm.202202766 · Cited by 359
Rupp, M., Klute, L., Baertl, S., Walter, N., Mannala, G., Frank, L., Pfeifer, C., Alt, V., & Kerschbaum, M. (2022) · Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials · doi:10.1002/jbm.b.34911 · Cited by 58
Han, S. H., Cha, M., Jin, Y.-Z., Lee, K.-M., & Lee, J. H. (2021) · Biomedical Materials · doi:10.1088/1748-605x/aba879 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Haugen, H. J., Lyngstadaas, S. P., Rossi, F., & Perale, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Periodontology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-06
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- S21
- Pages
- 92-102
- ISSN
- 0303-6979 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-051X
- OpenAlex
- W2909370897
- Cited by
- 573
- References
- 84
- FWCI
- 18.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jcpe.13058
- The paper
- Haugen, H. J., Lyngstadaas, S. P., Rossi, F., & Perale, G. (2019). Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial? Journal of Clinical Periodontology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13058
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
