To replace lost bone (e. g. due to trauma, inflammatory processes or tumour removal) and support bone regeneration, bone matrix of various origin can be used. Of all available options, autologous material is considered the gold standard, as vital cells and osteoinductive mediator proteins have a positive impact on the biological activity of the material. Moreover, there is no risk of immunogenicity or disease transmission, creating ideal conditions for efficient bone healing.

However, availability of sufficient amounts of autologous bone from various donor regions is limited. Larger amounts of cortical and cancellous bone can be collected from the iliac crest. However, this can result in nerve damage or pelvic instability and the collected tissue has high resorption rates. Moreover, there is an additional surgical site for the collection of autologous bone, that can in turn be associated with further bone defects, pain, and potential morbidity at the collection site.^1-3 Therefore, the use of processed allogeneic bone tissue is a viable alternative to autologous transplants.

Both processed allogeneic bone and autologous tissue have the same immunologic compatibility and the blood plasma of these patients has no circulating antibodies detectable.⁴ Moreover, there is radiographic, histologic and morphologic evidence that autograft and allograft are identical in the final stage of incorporation.^5-8

1. Hiatt WH, Schallhorn RG. Intraoral transplants of cancellous bone and marrow in periodontal lesions. J Periodontol. 1973 Apr;44(4):194-208.
2. Dragoo MR, Irwin RK. A method of procuring cancellous iliac bone utilizing a trephine needle. Periodontol. 1972 Feb;43(2):82-7.
3. Dimitriou R, Mataliotakis G, Angoules AG et al.. Complications following autologous bone graft harvesting from the iliac crest and using the RIA: a systematic review. Injury. 2011 Sep;42 Suppl 2:S3-15.
4. Gomes KU, Carlini JL, Biron C et al.. Use of allogeneic bone graft in maxillary reconstruction for installation of dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Nov;66(11):2335-8.
5. Urist MR. Bone: Formation by autoinduction. Science. 1965 Nov 12;150(3698):893-9.
6. Al-Abedalla K, Torres J, Cortes AR. Bone Augmented With Allograft Onlays for Implant Placement Could Be Comparable With Native Bone. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jun 20. pii: S0278-2391(15)00819-8. doi: 10.1016/j. joms.2015.06.151.
7. Temple HT, Malinin TI. Microparticulate cortical allograft: an alternative to autograft in the treatment of osseous defects. Open Orthop J. 2008 May 14;2:91-6. doi: 10.2174/1874325000802010091.
8. Schlee M, Dehner JF, Baukloh K et al.. Esthetic outcome of implant-based reconstructions in augmented bone: comparison of autologous and allogeneic bone block grafting with the pink esthetic score (PES). Head Face Med. 2014 May 28;10:21. doi:10.1186/1746-160X-10-21.