Hydroxyapatite as a material for transplantology: clinical experience and prospects of application
https://doi.org/10.15825/1995-1191-2026-1-263-275
Аннотация
The centrepiece of this analytical review is the metabolism of hydroxyapatite in its natural, bone, and synthetic forms, where the mitochondria-mediated mechanism may serve as the leading mechanism. The possibility that osteoblast mitochondria play an important role in the initial stages of bone mineralisation is discussed. Furthermore, the paper highlights the key role of mitochondria in the metabolism of synthetic hydroxyapatite. Differences between the results of in vivo and in vitro studies using synthetic hydroxyapatite of different morphologies are also detailed. It is noted that long-term infiltration with immune cells and in vivo studies are necessary to adequately evaluate hydroxyapatite as a bone-plastic material. Particular attention is given to the interaction of hydroxyapatite with immune cells and its ability to affect the ribosomes and mitochondria of cells. Due to its mechanical properties, scalability, and potential use for the treatment of extensive bone defects of tumor origin, hydroxyapatite is a promising material. This study also highlights the importance of further development of in vitro research methods in the context of their biomimeticity. Overall, this work offers a theoretical direction for future studies of hydroxyapatite as a bone grafting material and emphasises the value of in vivo studies.
Об авторах
V. A. Markelov
Bashkir State Medical University
Россия
Россия
Vitaliy Markelov
3, Lenin str., Ufa, 450008
Phone: (987) 097-92-48
K. V. Danilko
Bashkir State Medical University
Россия
Россия
Ufa
R. R. Yazgarova
Bashkir State Medical University
Россия
Россия
Ufa
I. Sh. Akhatov
Bashkir State Medical University
Россия
Россия
Ufa
V. N. Pavlov
Bashkir State Medical University
Россия
Россия
Ufa
Список литературы
1. Borden MD, Shors EC, Walsh WR, Lovric V. Characterization of an advanced bone graft material with a nanocrystalline hydroxycarbanoapatite surface and dual phase composition. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2024; 112: e35416. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.35416.
2. Battafarano G, Rossi M, De Martino V, Marampon F, Borro L, Secinaro A, Del Fattore A. Strategies for Bone Regeneration: From Graft to Tissue Engineering. Int J Mol Sci. 2021; 22: 1128. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22031128.
3. Pujari S, Hoess A, Shen J, Thormann A, Heilmann A, Tang L et al. Effects of nanoporous alumina on inflammatory cell response. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014; 102 (11): 3773–3780. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.35048.
4. Mahon OR, Browe DC, Gonzalez-Fernandez T, Pitacco P, Whelan IT, Von Euw S et al. Nano-particle mediated M2 macrophage polarization enhances bone formation and MSC osteogenesis in an IL-10 dependent manner. Biomaterials. 2020; 239: 119833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.119833.
5. Wang R, Hua Y, Wu H, Wang J, Xiao YC, Chen X et al. Hydroxyapatite nanoparticles promote TLR4 agonistmediated anti-tumor immunity through synergically enhanced macrophage polarization. Acta Biomater. 2023; 164: 626–640. https://doi.org10.1016/j.actbio.2023.04.027.
6. Chen Y, Klein-Nulend J, Bravenboer N. Ageing-Related Changes in Ultrastructural Bone Matrix Composition and Osteocyte Mechanosensitivity. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2025; 23: 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-02500927-0.
7. Sobczak-Kupiec A, Drabczyk A, Florkiewicz W, Głąb M, Kudłacik-Kramarczyk S, Słota D et al. Review of the Applications of Biomedical Compositions Containing Hydroxyapatite and Collagen Modified by Bioactive Components. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14 (9): 2096. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14092096.
8. Veremeev A, Bolgarin R, Nesterenko V, Andreev-Andrievskiy A, Kutikhin A. Native Bovine Hydroxyapatite Powder, Demineralised Bone Matrix Powder, and Purified Bone Collagen Membranes Are Efficient in Repair of Critical-Sized Rat Calvarial Defects. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13 (15): 3393. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13153393.
9. Indurkar A, Choudhary R, Rubenis K, Locs J. Role of carboxylic organic molecules in interfibrillar collagen mineralization. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023; 11: 1150037. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1150037.
10. Simon P, Grüner D, Worch H, Pompe W, Lichte H, El Khassawna T et al. First evidence of octacalcium phosphateosteocalcin nanocomplex as skeletal bone component directing collagen triple-helix nanofibril mineralization. Sci Rep. 2018; 8 (1): 13696. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31983-5.
11. Carvalho MS, Cabral JMS, da Silva CL, Vashishth D. Bone Matrix Non-Collagenous Proteins in Tissue Engineering: Creating New Bone by Mimicking the Extracellular Matrix. Polymers (Basel). 2021; 13 (7): 1095. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13071095.
12. Xu Z, Yang C, Wu F, Tan X, Guo Y, Zhang H et al. Triplegene deletion for osteocalcin significantly impairs the alignment of hydroxyapatite crystals and collagen in mice. Front Physiol. 2023 Mar 28; 14: 1136561. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1136561.
13. Koblenzer M, Weiler M, Fragoulis A, Rütten S, Pufe T, Jahr H. Physiological Mineralization during In Vitro Osteogenesis in a Biomimetic Spheroid Culture Model. Cells. 2022; 11 (17): 2702. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11172702.
14. Pastero L, Bruno M, Aquilano D. Habit Change of Monoclinic Hydroxyapatite Crystals Growing from Aqueous Solution in the Presence of Citrate Ions: The Role of 2D Epitaxy. Crystals. 2018; 8 (8): 308. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst8080308.
15. Xue Z, Wang X, Xu D. Molecular investigations of the prenucleation mechanism of bone-like apatite assisted by type I collagen nanofibrils: insights into intrafibril- lar mineralization. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2022; 24: 18931–18942. https://doi.org/10.1039/d2cp02573f.
16. Hong MH, Lee JH, Jung HS, Shin H, Shin H. Biomineralization of bone tissue: calcium phosphate-based inorganics in collagen fibrillar organic matrices. Biomater Res. 2022; 26: 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-02200288-0.
17. Moriishi T, Ozasa R, Ishimoto T, Nakano T, Hasegawa T, Miyazaki T et al. Osteocalcin is necessary for the alignment of apatite crystallites, but not glucose metabolism, testosterone synthesis, or muscle mass. PLoS Genet. 2020; 16 (5): e1008586. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008586.
18. Komori T. What is the function of osteocalcin? J Oral Biosci. 2020; 62 (3): 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.job.2020.05.004.
19. Wang B, Zhang Z, Pan H. Bone Apatite Nanocrystal: Crystalline Structure, Chemical Composition, and Architecture. Biomimetics (Basel). 2023; 8 (1): 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8010090.
20. Goloshchapov D, Kashkarov V, Nikitkov K, Seredin P. Investigation of the Effect of Nanocrystalline Calcium Carbonate-Substituted Hydroxyapatite and L-Lysine and L-Arginine Surface Interactions on the Molecular Properties of Dental Biomimetic Composites. Biomimetics (Basel). 2021; 6: 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics6040070.
21. Kämmerer PW, Heimes D, Zaage F, Ganz C, Frerich B, Gerber T, Dau M. Improving material properties of a poloxamer P407 hydrogel-based hydroxyapatite bone substitute material by adding silica – A comparative in vivo study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2024; 112: e35405. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.35405.
22. Makarova SV, Bulina NV, Golubeva YA, Klyushova LS, Dumchenko NB, Shatskaya SS et al. Hydroxyapatite Double Substituted with Zinc and Silicate Ions: Possibility of Mechanochemical Synthesis and In Vitro Properties. Materials (Basel). 2023; 16: 1385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16041385.
23. Saghiri MA, Vakhnovetsky J, Vakhnovetsky A, Ghobrial M, Nath D, Morgano SM. Functional role of inorganic trace elements in dentin apatite tissue – Part 1: Mg, Sr, Zn, and Fe. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2022; 71: 126932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2022.126932.
24. Kołodziejska B, Stępień N, Kolmas J. The Influence of Strontium on Bone Tissue Metabolism and Its Application in Osteoporosis Treatment. Int J Mol Sci. 2021; 22: 6564. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22126564.
25. Bigi A, Boanini E, Gazzano M. Ion Substitution in Biological and Synthetic Apatites. Biomineralization and Biomaterials. 2016: 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-338-6.00008-9.
26. Bystrov V, Paramonova E, Avakyan L, Coutinho J, Bulina N. Simulation and Computer Study of Structures and Physical Properties of Hydroxyapatite with Various Defects. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2021; 11: 2752. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11102752.
27. LeGeros RZ, Ito A, Ishikawa K, Sakae T, LeGeros JP. Fundamentals of hydroxyapatite and related calcium phosphates. Adv Biomater Fundam Process Appl. 2009: 19–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470891315.ch2.
28. Correa-Piña BA, Castillo-Paz AM, García-Servín M, Rodriguez-Garcia ME. Age-dependent structural optimization of biogenic hydroxyapatite: implications for the design of nanocrystalline bone grafts and implant coatings. Ceram Int. 2025; 51: 63549–63558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2025.10.442.
29. Suzuki O, Hamai R, Sakai S. The material design of octacalcium phosphate bone substitute: increased dissolution and osteogenecity. Acta Biomater. 2023; 158: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2022.12.046.
30. Zhou C, Zhang X, Ai J, Ji T, Nagai M, Duan Y et al. Chiral hierarchical structure of bone minerals. Nano Res. 2022; 15: 1295–1302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274021-3653-z.
31. Guarino V, Veronesi F, Marrese M, Giavaresi G, Ronca A, Sandri M et al. Needle-like ion-doped hydroxyapatite crystals influence osteogenic properties of PCL composite scaffolds. Biomed Mater. 2016; 11 (1): 015018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/11/1/015018.
32. Yamamoto T, Hasegawa T, Hongo H, Amizuka N. Alternating lamellar structure in human cellular cementum and rat compact bone: Its structure and formation. J Oral Biosci. 2019; 61 (2): 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.job.2019.03.006.
33. Pazzaglia UE, Congiu T, Marchese M, Spagnuolo F, Quacci D. Morphometry and patterns of lamellar bone in human Haversian systems. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2012; 295 (9): 1421–1429. doi: 10.1002/ar.22535.
34. Locke M. Structure of long bones in mammals. J Morphol. 2004; 262 (2): 546–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.10282.
35. Schmidt AH. Autologous bone graft: Is it still the gold standard? Injury. 2021; 52 Suppl 2: S18–S22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2021.01.043.
36. Dissaux C, Ruffenach L, Bruant-Rodier C, George D, Bodin F, Rémond Y. Cleft Alveolar Bone Graft Materials: Literature Review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022; 59 (3): 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656211007692.
37. Rodriguez-Fontan F. Fracture healing, the diamond concept under the scope: hydroxyapatite and the hexagon. Medicina (B Aires). 2022; 82: 764–769.
38. De Pace R, Molinari S, Mazzoni E, Perale G. Bone Regeneration: A Review of Current Treatment Strategies. J Clin Med. 2025; 14 (6): 1838. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14061838.
39. Hamada T, Matsubara H, Hikichi T, Shimokawa K, Tsuchiya H. Rat model of an autologous cancellous bone graft. Sci Rep. 2021; 11 (1): 18001. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97573-0.
40. Mehta DD, Dankert JF, Buchalter DB, Kirby DJ, Patel KS, Rocks M et al. Iliac Crest and Distal Radius Autografts Exhibit Distinct Cell-Intrinsic Functional Differences. J Hand Surg Am. 2022; S0363-5023(22)00330-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.06.005
41. Stahl A, Yang YP. Regenerative Approaches for the Treatment of Large Bone Defects. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2021; 27 (6): 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2020.0281.
42. Taqi M, Llewellyn CM, Estefan M. Fibula Tissue Transfer. 2023; In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ books/NBK563283/.
43. Jiao M, Shuai T, Zhao Z, Wu Y, Yu L, Sun J et al. Categories, applications, and potential of stem cells in bone regeneration: an overview. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025; 12: 1606100. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1606100.
44. Street M, Gao R, Martis W, Munro J, Musson D, Cornish J et al. The Efficacy of Local Autologous Bone Dust: A Systematic Review. Spine Deform. 2017; 5 (4): 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2017.02.003.
45. Hazballa D, Inchingolo AD, Inchingolo AM, Malcangi G, Santacroce L, Minetti E et al. The effectiveness of autologous demineralized tooth graft for the bone ridge preservation: a systematic review of the literature. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2021; 35 (2 Suppl. 1): 283–294. https://doi.org/10.23812/21-2supp1-28.
46. Peterson JR, Chen F, Nwankwo E, Dekker TJ, Adams SB. The Use of Bone Grafts, Bone Graft Substitutes, and Orthobiologics for Osseous Healing in Foot and Ankle Surgery. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2019; 4 (3): 2473011419849019. https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011419849019.
47. Al-Moraissi EA, Alkhutari AS, Abotaleb B, Altairi NH, Del Fabbro M. Do osteoconductive bone substitutes result in similar bone regeneration for maxillary sinus augmentation when compared to osteogenic and osteoinductive bone grafts? A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 49 (1): 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2019.05.004.
48. Bidolegui F, Pereira S, Irigoyen C, Esteves Pires R. Safety and efficacy of a novel retrograde route for femoral bone graft harvesting by Reamer-Irrigator-Aspirator: a pilot study on 24 patients. Patient Saf Surg. 2022; 16: 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-021-00315-4.
49. Van de Wall BJM, Beeres FJP, Rompen IF, Link BC, Babst R, Schoeneberg C et al. RIA versus iliac crest bone graft harvesting: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Injury. 2022; 53 (2): 286–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2021.10.002.
50. Laubach M, Weimer LP, Bläsius FM, Hildebrand F, Kobbe P, Hutmacher DW. Complications associated using the reamer-irrigator-aspirator (RIA) system: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023; 143 (7): 3823–3843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04621-z.
51. Al-Fotawi R, Fallatah W. Revascularization and angiogenesis for bone bioengineering in the craniofacial region: a review. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2023; 34: 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-023-06730-6.
52. Ku JK, Ghim MS, Park JH, Leem DH. A ramus cortical bone harvesting technique without bone marrow invasion. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023; 49 (2): 100–104. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2023.49.2.100.
53. Vandeputte T, Bigorre M, Tramini P, Captier G. Comparison between combined cortical and cancellous bone graft and cancellous bone graft in alveolar cleft: Retrospective study of complications during the first six months post-surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020; 48 (1): 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2019.11.013.
54. Ogden NKE, Jukic CC, Zedler ST. Management of an extensive equine juvenile ossifying fibroma by rostral mandibulectomy and reconstruction of the mandibular symphysis using String of Pearls plates with cortical and cancellous bone autografts. Vet Surg. 2019; 48 (1): 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.12943.
55. Kobbe P, Laubach M, Hutmacher DW, Alabdulrahman H, Sellei RM, Hildebrand F. Convergence of scaffold-guided bone regeneration and RIA bone grafting for the treatment of a critical-sized bone defect of the femoral shaft. Eur J Med Res. 2020; 25 (1): 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-020-00471-w.
56. Ehredt DJ Jr, Rogers B, Takhar J, Payton P, Siesel K. Percutaneous Harvest of Calcaneal Bone Autograft: Quantification of Volume and Definition of Anatomical Safe Zone. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2022; 61 (1): 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2021.06.001.
57. Suda AJ, Schamberger CT, Viergutz T. Donor site complications following anterior iliac crest bone graft for treatment of distal radius fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019; 139 (3): 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-3098-3.
58. Li G, Li P, Chen Q, Thu HE, Hussain Z. Current Updates on Bone Grafting Biomaterials and Recombinant Human Growth Factors Implanted Biotherapy for Spinal Fusion: A Review of Human Clinical Studies. Curr Drug Deliv. 2019; 16 (2): 94–110. https://doi.org/10.2174/1567201815666181024142354.
59. Smeets R, Matthies L, Windisch P, Gosau M, Jung R, Brodala N et al. Horizontal augmentation techniques in the mandible: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2022; 8 (1): 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-02200421-7.
60. Sharifi M, Kheradmandi R, Salehi M, Alizadeh M, Ten Hagen TLM, Falahati M. Criteria, Challenges, and Opportunities for Acellularized Allogeneic/Xenogeneic Bone Grafts in Bone Repairing. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2022; 8 (8): 3199–3219. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.2c00194.
61. Salem D, Alshihri A, Arguello E, Jung RE, Mohmed HA, Friedland B. Volumetric Analysis of Allogenic and Xenogenic Bone Substitutes Used in Maxillary Sinus Augmentations Utilizing Cone Beam CT: A Prospective Randomized Pilot Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34 (4): 920–926. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7318.
62. Govoni M, Vivarelli L, Mazzotta A, Stagni C, Maso A, Dallari D. Commercial Bone Grafts Claimed as an Alternative to Autografts: Current Trends for Clinical Applications in Orthopaedics. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14 (12): 3290. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14123290.
63. Zheng R, Zhang N, Mao S, Li J, Yan X, Zhang G et al. Fast bone regeneration using injectable fully biomimetic organoids with biomineralized and organic microenvironments. Biomater Sci. 2025; 13: 486–495. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4BM01181C.
64. Domingues MF, Carvalho MS, Sanjuan-Alberte P, Silva JC. Synthetic scaffolds functionalized with mesenchymal stem/stromal cells-derived extracellular matrix for bone tissue engineering: a review. RSC Adv. 2025; 15: 31812–31829. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5RA02106E.
65. Scheufler KM, Diesing D. Einsatz von Knochenersatzmaterialien bei Fusionen der Wirbelsäule [Use of bone graft replacement in spinal fusions]. Orthopade. 2015; 44 (2): 146–153. German. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-014-3069-5.
66. Brink O. The choice between allograft or demineralized bone matrix is not unambiguous in trauma surgery. Injury. 2021; 52 Suppl 2: S23–S28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2020.11.013.
67. Ren J, Li Z, Liu W, Fan Y, Qi L, Li S et al. Demineralized bone matrix for repair and regeneration of maxillofacial defects: A narrative review. J Dent. 2024; 143: 104899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104899.
68. Janjua OS, Qureshi SM, Shaikh MS, Alnazzawi A, Rodriguez-Lozano FJ, Pecci-Lloret MP, Zafar MS. Autogenous Tooth Bone Grafts for Repair and Regeneration of Maxillofacial Defects: A Narrative Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19 (6): 3690. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063690.
69. Kotelnikov GP, Kolsanov AV, Volova LT, Trunin DA, Popov NV, Nikolaenko AN et al. Tekhnologiia proizvodstva personifitsirovannogo rekonstruktivnogo allogennogo kostnogo implantata [Technology of manufacturing of personalized reconstructive allogenic bone graft (in Russian only)]. Khirurgiia (Mosk). 2019; (3): 65–72. Russian. https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia201903165.
70. Shepard NA, Rothstein BR, Nasser R, O’Toole RV, Sethi RK. Demineralized Bone Matrix (DBM) in Spine Surgery: A Review of Current Evidence and Variability in Products and Processing. Int J Spine Surg. 2021; 15 (5): 8059. https://doi.org/10.14444/8059.
71. Gruskin E, Doll BA, Futrell FW, Schmitz JP, Hollinger JO. Demineralized bone matrix in bone repair: history and use. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012; 64 (12): 1063– 1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.06.008.
72. Wu J, Liu F, Wang Z, Liu Y, Zhao X, Fang C et al. The Development of a Magnesium-Releasing and LongTerm Mechanically Stable Calcium Phosphate Bone Cement Possessing Osteogenic and Immunomodulation Effects for Promoting Bone Fracture Regeneration. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 9: 803723. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.803723.
73. Würdinger R, Donkiewicz P. Allogeneic cortical struts and bone granules for challenging alveolar reconstructions: An innovative approach toward an established technique. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020; 32 (8): 747–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12639.
74. Bieganowski T, Buchalter DB, Singh V, Mercuri JJ, Aggarwal VK, Rozell JC et al. Bone loss in aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: management and outcomes. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2022; 34 (1): 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-022-00158-y.
75. Blokhuis TJ, Arts JJ. Bioactive and osteoinductive bone graft substitutes: definitions, facts and myths. Injury. 2011; 42 Suppl 2: S26–S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.06.010.
76. Rocha T, Cavalcanti AS, Leal AC, Dias RB, da Costa RS, Ribeiro GO et al. PTH1–34 improves devitalized allogenic bone graft healing in a murine femoral critical size defect. Injury. 2021; 52 Suppl 3: S3–S12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2021.03.063.
77. Golubovsky JL, Ejikeme T, Winkelman R, Steinmetz MP. Osteobiologics. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2021; 21 (Suppl 1): S2–S9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opaa383.
78. Veronesi F, Martini L, Giavaresi G, Fini M. Bone regenerative medicine: metatarsus defects in sheep to evaluate new therapeutic strategies for human long bone defect. A systematic review. Injury. 2020; 51 (7): 1457–1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2020.04.010.
79. Shih S, Askinas C, Caughey S, Vernice N, Berri N, Dong X et al. Sourcing and development of tissue for transplantation in reconstructive surgery: A narrative review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023; 83: 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2023.05.001.
80. Hofmann GH, Sarsour R, van Deursen W, Alayleh A, Duru N, Whitaker E. Immune rejection of orthopedic tissue allograft: a scoping review of clinical and experimental evidence. J ISAKOS. 2025; 10 (4): 101002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisako.2025.101002.
81. Kwiecien GJ, Aliotta R, Bassiri Gharb B, Gastman B, Zins JE. The Timing of Alloplastic Cranioplasty in the Setting of Previous Osteomyelitis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019; 143 (3): 853–861. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005363.
82. Egol KA, Nauth A, Lee M, Pape HC, Watson JT, Borrelli J Jr. Bone Grafting: Sourcing, Timing, Strategies, and Alternatives. J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29 Suppl 12: S10–S14. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000460.
83. Viola A 3rd, Appiah J, Donnally CJ 3rd, Kim YH, Shenoy K. Bone Graft Options in Spinal Fusion: A Review of Current Options and the Use of Mesenchymal Cellular Bone Matrices. World Neurosurg. 2022; 158: 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.11.130.
84. Abedi A, Formanek B, Russell N, Vizesi F, Boden SD, Wang JC et al. Examination of the Role of Cells in Commercially Available Cellular Allografts in Spine Fusion: An in Vivo Animal Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020; 102 (24): e135. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.00330.
85. Kinaia BM, Daweri O, Gala R, Turows A, Harunani A, Neely AL. Management of vertical bony defect using novel xenogeneic/allogeneic bone graft: A case report. Clin Adv Periodontics. 2024 Jun; 14 (2): 95–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/cap.10256.
86. Bansal MR, Bhagat SB, Shukla DD. Bovine cancellous xenograft in the treatment of tibial plateau fractures in elderly patients. Int Orthop. 2009; 33 (3): 779–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0526-y.
87. Naros A, Bayazeed B, Schwarz U, Nagursky H, Reinert S, Schmelzeisen R et al. A prospective histomorphometric and cephalometric comparison of bovine bone substitute and autogenous bone grafting in Le Fort I osteotomies. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019; 47 (2): 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.11.032.
88. Lim J, Jun SH, Tallarico M, Park JB, Park DH, Hwang KG et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial of Guided Bone Regeneration for Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects with Two Anorganic Bovine Bone Materials Covered by Titanium Meshes. Materials (Basel). 2022; 15 (15): 5294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15155294.
89. Tawil G, Barbeck M, Unger R, Tawil P, Witte F. Sinus Floor Elevation Using the Lateral Approach and Window Repositioning and a Xenogeneic Bone Substitute as a Grafting Material: A Histologic, Histomorphometric, and Radiographic Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018; 33 (5): 1089–1096. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6226.
90. Ding Y, Wang L, Su K, Gao J, Li X, Cheng G. Horizontal bone augmentation and simultaneous implant placement using xenogeneic bone rings technique: a retrospective clinical study. Sci Rep. 2021; 11 (1): 4947. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84401-8.
91. Shibuya N, Holloway BK, Jupiter DC. A comparative study of incorporation rates between non-xenograft and bovine-based structural bone graft in foot and ankle surgery. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2014; 53 (2): 164–167. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2013.10.013.
92. Shibuya N, Jupiter DC. Bone graft substitute: allograft and xenograft. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2015; 32 (1): 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpm.2014.09.011.
93. Schwarz F, Ferrari D, Balic E, Buser D, Becker J, Sager M. Lateral ridge augmentation using equine- and bovine-derived cancellous bone blocks: a feasibility study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21 (9): 904–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01951.x.
94. Ledford CK, Nunley JA 2nd, Viens NA, Lark RK. Bovine xenograft failures in pediatric foot reconstructive surgery. J Pediatr Orthop. 2013; 33 (4): 458–463. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e318287010d.
95. Baldwin P, Li DJ, Auston DA, Mir HS, Yoon RS, Koval KJ. Autograft, Allograft, and Bone Graft Substitutes: Clinical Evidence and Indications for Use in the Setting of Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery. J Orthop Trauma. 2019; 33 (4): 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001420.
96. Dorozhkin SV. Calcium orthophosphate-based bioceramics and their clinical applications. Materials. 2021; 14: 462. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14020462.
97. Barinov SM, Komlev VS. Calcium phosphate ceramics for bone tissue engineering. Inorganic Materials. 2020; 56: 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0020168520020049.
98. Komlev VS, Barinov SM, Fadeeva IV. Bioceramics based on calcium phosphates for regenerative medicine. Glass and Ceramics. 2021; 78: 294–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10717-021-00372-7.
99. Fadeeva IV, Shvorneva LI, Barinov SM. Porous hydroxyapatite ceramics for bone defect replacement. Inorganic Materials. 2019; 55: 989–996. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0020168519090051.
100. Rau JV, Cacciotti I, De Bonis A, Barinov SM. Bioactive calcium phosphate-based coatings and ceramics for bone tissue repair. Biomedical Materials. 2020; 15: 035010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-605X/ab7f3d.
101. Sheikh Z, Hamdan N, Ikeda Y, Grynpas M, Ganss B, Glogauer M. Natural graft tissues and synthetic biomaterials for bone reconstruction. Biomater Res. 2017; 21: 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-017-0095-5.
102. Giannoudis PV, Einhorn TA, Marsh D. Fracture healing: The diamond concept. Injury. 2007; 38: S3–S6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(08)70003-2.
103. Calori GM, Colombo M, Ripamonti C et al. Bone graft and substitutes in orthopaedic trauma surgery. Injury. 2011; 42: S20–S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.06.008.
104. Fillingham Y, Jacobs J. Bone grafts and their substitutes. Bone & Joint Journal. 2016; 98-B: 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B.36350.
105. Campana V, Milano G, Pagano E, Barba M, Cicione C, Salonna G et al. Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014; 25: 2445–2461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5240-2.
106. Dorozhkin SV. Functionalized calcium orthophosphates: Ionic substitutions and biological effects. Materials Science Forum. 2022; 1052: 3–18. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.1052.3.
107. Fadeeva IV, Komlev VS, Rau JV. Strontium- and magnesium-substituted hydroxyapatite for bone regeneration. Ceramics International. 2022; 48: 18945–18955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2022.03.102.
108. Barinov SM, Fadeeva IV. Carbonate-containing hydroxyapatite ceramics: Structure and bioactivity. Glass Physics and Chemistry. 2020; 46: 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1087659620050069.
109. Elliott JC. Structure and chemistry of the apatites and other calcium orthophosphates. Elsevier. 2018.
110. Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 2005; 26: 5474–5491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002.
111. Bose S, Roy M, Bandyopadhyay A. Recent advances in bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Trends Biotechnol. 2019; 37: 797–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.01.005.
112. Webster TJ, Ergun C, Doremus RH, Siegel RW, Bizios R. Enhanced functions of osteoblasts on nanophase ceramics. Biomaterials. 2000; 21: 1803–1810. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00075-2.
113. Sprio S, Tampieri A, Landi E. Bio-inspired hydroxyapatite-based materials for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2020; 120: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2020.11.031.
114. Marie PJ. Strontium as therapy for osteoporosis. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2005; 5: 633–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2005.06.004.
115. Yamaguchi M. Role of zinc in bone formation and bone resorption. J Trace Elem Exp Med. 1998; 11: 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520670X(1998)11:2/3<119::AID-JTRA6>3.0.CO;2-3.
116. Rezwan K, Chen QZ, Blaker JJ, Boccaccini AR. Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2006; 27: 3413–3431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.039.
Рецензия
Для цитирования:
Markelov V.A., Danilko K.V., Yazgarova R.R., Akhatov I.Sh., Pavlov V.N. Hydroxyapatite as a material for transplantology: clinical experience and prospects of application. Вестник трансплантологии и искусственных органов. 2026;28(1):263-275. https://doi.org/10.15825/1995-1191-2026-1-263-275
For citation:
Markelov V.A., Danilko K.V., Yazgarova R.R., Akhatov I.Sh., Pavlov V.N. Hydroxyapatite as a material for transplantology: clinical experience and prospects of application. Russian Journal of Transplantology and Artificial Organs. 2026;28(1):263-275. https://doi.org/10.15825/1995-1191-2026-1-263-275
Просмотров:
230
JATS XML
Послать статью по эл. почте 