The Science Behind Bone Graft Substitutes: How They Work

In our first post in this series, we explored the ideal characteristics of bone graft substitutes (BGS), emphasizing their osteoinductive, osteoconductive, osteogenic, bioresorbable, and biocompatible properties, as well as their ability to integrate seamlessly into the patient’s bone post-implantation (1, 2). Now let’s take a closer look at the biological mechanisms driving BGS integration and effectiveness in fracture repair.
Key Biological Mechanisms of BGS Integration
Bone graft substitutes leverage the same mechanisms we discussed in our fracture repair post: viable osteoprogenitor cells, signaling molecules, and an appropriate connective tissue matrix to support bone formation. These fundamental biological properties are known as osteogenesis, osteoinduction, and osteoconduction, respectively.
  1. Osteogenesis: Direct Bone Formation

    The osteogenic properties of a bone graft determine its ability to generate new bone tissue from the graft itself. Osteogenic grafts contain the osteoprogenitor cells, growth factors and matrix that are required to form new bone.

    • Fresh autografts and bone marrow aspirates retain living osteoblasts or MSC, enabling direct new bone formation.

    • Allografts and synthetic materials lack osteogenic cells but can support bone formation when paired with osteoinductive signaling molecules (1-4).

  2. Osteoinduction: A Key Step in Activating Bone Formation

    Osteoinduction refers to the ability of a graft to stimulate osteoprogenitor cells such as mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) to differentiate into bone-forming osteoblasts and chondroblasts, leading to new bone formation. This process is regulated by factors that orchestrate cell differentiation, proliferation, growth, and matrix deposition, including:

    • Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMP)

    • Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGF)

    • Platelet-derived Growth Factor (PDGF)

    • Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)

    • Others

  3. Osteoconduction: Providing a Scaffold for Growth

    Osteoconduction refers to the ability of the graft to serve as a scaffold, allowing new bone cells to adhere, proliferate, and integrate with the patient’s existing bone. As discussed in our last post, BGS with osteoconductive properties include:

    • Porous ceramic-based substitutes like hydroxyapatite and β-TCP that provide structural support while permitting cell infiltration.

    • Bioactive materials like synthetic polymers that encourage capillary formation and cellular migration.

    • Next-generation synthetic carbohydrate polymers, like Osteo-P® BGS, that support cell and vascular infiltration, and sequester the patient’s own osteoinductive factors for bone formation.

Phases of bone graft integration
Bone graft integration follows a stepwise biological process ensuring successful integration into the patient’s bone:
  1. Inflammatory Response – Recruitment of immune cells to the graft site.

  2. Secretion of Growth Factors – MSC and macrophages drive tissue remodeling.

  3. Cellular Infiltration and Scaffold Utilization – The patient’s own MSC, osteoprogenitors, and vascular progenitors migrate into the graft via the porous scaffold. In the case of autografts, live cells within the graft itself may contribute to repair.

  4. Osteoblast Differentiation – Growth factors and cytokines induce differentiation of these cells into osteoblasts and chondroblasts, which begin the process of bone repair.

  5. New Bone Synthesis and Revascularization – Osteoblasts synthesize new bone while circulation is re-established by vasculogenesis.  Vascularization is a key to long-term integration as tissue grows where blood flows.

  6. Matrix remodeling and graft resorption – Over time, mature bone replaces the graft material as the bone’s natural cellular remodeling processes take over (1,5).

Autograft or Allograft Bone Type Matters: Cancellous vs Cortical Graft Integration
The speed and quality of graft integration is influenced by the type of bone in the graft for auto- or allografts.
Cancellous Bone:
  • High osteogenic potential due to the presence of osteoblasts and osteocytes.

  • Faster incorporation due to high porosity and vascularization (6-12 months).

  • Autografts undergo direct resorption while allografts may form a fibrous capsule which slows mineralization.

Cortical Bone:
  • Cortical bone is denser than cancellous bone, is more frequently used as a structural or load-bearing bone graft, and has a slower integration process.

  • Integration occurs through a process known as creeping substitution, a slow resorption of the graft with deposition of new bone.

  • Creeping substitution is driven by osteoclasts and begins at the graft-host junction.

  • The process occurs over many years, leading to initial mechanical strength loss before full integration.

Understanding these biological mechanisms enables future innovations in tissue-engineered BGS, aimed at improving regenerative outcomes for orthopedic surgery patients.
Advancing Synthetic Bone Graft Technology

At Molecular Matrix, Inc., we apply tissue engineering principles to develop advanced bone graft substitutes that enhance healing, integration, and patient recovery. Learn more about our cutting-edge solutions at www.molecularmatrix.com

References
  1. Georgeanu, V. Al., Gingu, O., Antoniac, I. V., & Manolea, H. O. (2023). Current Options and Future  Perspectives on Bone Graft and Biomaterials Substitutes for Bone Repair, from Clinical Needs to Advanced Biomaterials Research. Applied Sciences, 13(14), 8471. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13148471

  2. Sohn, H.-S., & Oh, J.-K. (2019). Review of bone graft and bone substitutes with an emphasis on fracture surgeries. Biomaterials Research, 23(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-019-0157-y

  3. Gillman, C. E., & Jayasuriya, A. C. (2021). FDA-approved bone grafts and bone graft substitute devices in bone regeneration. Materials Science and Engineering: C, 130, 112466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2021.112466

  4. Inglis, J. E., Goodwin, A. M., Divi, S. N., & Hsu, W. K. (2023). Advances in Synthetic Grafts in Spinal Fusion Surgery. International Journal of Spine Surgery, 17(S3), S18–S27. https://doi.org/10.14444/8557

  5. Ranjan Dahiya, U., Mishra, S., & Bano, S. (2019). Application of Bone Substitutes and Its Future Prospective in Regenerative Medicine. In M. Barbeck, O. Jung, R. Smeets, & T. Koržinskas (Eds.), Biomaterial-supported Tissue Reconstruction or Regeneration. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85092