Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 612

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Alternatives to Autogenous Bone Graft: Efficacy and Indications

Gazdag, André R., Lane, Joseph M., Glaser, David, Forster, Robert A.·1995·Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Abstract

Bone grafting is frequently used to augment bone healing with the numerous approaches to reconstructing or replacing skeletal defects. Autologous cancellous bone graft remains the most effective grafting material because it provides the three elements required for bone regeneration: osteoconduction, osteoinduction, and osteogenic cells. Autologous cortical bone graft provides these three components to a limited extent as well and also provides the structural integrity important in reconstruction of larger defects. However, because autogenous grafting is associated with several shortcomings and complications, including limited quantities of bone for harvest and donor-site morbidity, alternatives have been used in a wide range of orthopaedic pathologic conditions. Grafting substitutes currently available include cancellous and cortical allograft bone, ceramics, demineralized bone matrix, bone marrow, and composite grafts. No single alternative graft material provides all three components for bone regeneration. The clinical applications for each type of material are dictated by its particular structural and biochemical properties. Composite grafts consisting of several materials are often used to maximize bone healing, especially where the grafting site is compromised.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5435/00124635-199501000-00001

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Gazdag, A. R., Lane, J. M., Glaser, D., & Forster, R. A.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
Published
1995-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
1-8
ISSN
1067-151X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2161845595
Cited by
612
References
0
FWCI
5.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.