Comparison of Osteoinductive Potential of Autografts vs. Allografts in Mandibular Defect Models

Background: Mandibular defects resulting from trauma, tumors, or congenital anomalies present a significant challenge in craniofacial reconstruction. Bone grafting, including autografts and allografts, is a widely used approach to repair such defects. Autografts, harvested from the patient’s own bod...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Pratap Movaniya, Ritu Chhatbar, Sumit Bhatt, Ngangbam Johnson Sing, Ashtha Arya, Hiral Parmar
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2025-06-01
Series:Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1924_24
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850091589603426304
author Pratap Movaniya
Ritu Chhatbar
Sumit Bhatt
Ngangbam Johnson Sing
Ashtha Arya
Hiral Parmar
author_facet Pratap Movaniya
Ritu Chhatbar
Sumit Bhatt
Ngangbam Johnson Sing
Ashtha Arya
Hiral Parmar
author_sort Pratap Movaniya
collection DOAJ
description Background: Mandibular defects resulting from trauma, tumors, or congenital anomalies present a significant challenge in craniofacial reconstruction. Bone grafting, including autografts and allografts, is a widely used approach to repair such defects. Autografts, harvested from the patient’s own body, are considered the gold standard due to their osteogenic, osteoconductive, and osteoinductive properties. However, the limited availability and donor site morbidity have encouraged the use of allografts. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 mandibular defect models in rabbits were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 20) treated with autografts and Group B (n = 20) treated with allografts. Standardized 5 mm × 3 mm defects were created bilaterally in the mandible under general anesthesia. Bone grafts were prepared and placed in the defects. Osteoinductive potential was evaluated over 8 weeks using radiographic analysis, histomorphometric assessment, and quantification of bone formation markers, such as osteocalcin and alkaline phosphatase. Arbitrary scores of bone density and new bone formation were measured at 4 and 8 weeks. Results: At 4 weeks, Group A (autografts) showed significant bone formation with an average bone density score of 65%, compared with 45% in Group B (allografts) (P < 0.05). By 8 weeks, Group A demonstrated an 85% mean bone density, with complete defect bridging observed in 70% of cases. Group B exhibited delayed bone regeneration, with 65% mean bone density and complete bridging in 40% of cases. Histomorphometric analysis revealed higher osteoblast activity and greater bone volume in the autograft group. Osteocalcin levels were notably higher in Group A (120 ng/mL) compared with Group B (95 ng/mL), confirming superior osteoinductive activity. Conclusion: Autografts demonstrated superior osteoinductive potential compared with allografts in mandibular defect models, as evidenced by earlier and more complete bone regeneration. Although allografts remain a viable alternative, their delayed healing response highlights the need for further improvements in graft preparation and bioengineering. Autografts continue to be the preferred choice for mandibular reconstruction when feasible.
format Article
id doaj-art-e5afb06cef154c7ea4415ebfff40d4de
institution DOAJ
issn 0976-4879
0975-7406
language English
publishDate 2025-06-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences
spelling doaj-art-e5afb06cef154c7ea4415ebfff40d4de2025-08-20T02:42:21ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences0976-48790975-74062025-06-0117Suppl 2S1399S140110.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1924_24Comparison of Osteoinductive Potential of Autografts vs. Allografts in Mandibular Defect ModelsPratap MovaniyaRitu ChhatbarSumit BhattNgangbam Johnson SingAshtha AryaHiral ParmarBackground: Mandibular defects resulting from trauma, tumors, or congenital anomalies present a significant challenge in craniofacial reconstruction. Bone grafting, including autografts and allografts, is a widely used approach to repair such defects. Autografts, harvested from the patient’s own body, are considered the gold standard due to their osteogenic, osteoconductive, and osteoinductive properties. However, the limited availability and donor site morbidity have encouraged the use of allografts. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 mandibular defect models in rabbits were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 20) treated with autografts and Group B (n = 20) treated with allografts. Standardized 5 mm × 3 mm defects were created bilaterally in the mandible under general anesthesia. Bone grafts were prepared and placed in the defects. Osteoinductive potential was evaluated over 8 weeks using radiographic analysis, histomorphometric assessment, and quantification of bone formation markers, such as osteocalcin and alkaline phosphatase. Arbitrary scores of bone density and new bone formation were measured at 4 and 8 weeks. Results: At 4 weeks, Group A (autografts) showed significant bone formation with an average bone density score of 65%, compared with 45% in Group B (allografts) (P < 0.05). By 8 weeks, Group A demonstrated an 85% mean bone density, with complete defect bridging observed in 70% of cases. Group B exhibited delayed bone regeneration, with 65% mean bone density and complete bridging in 40% of cases. Histomorphometric analysis revealed higher osteoblast activity and greater bone volume in the autograft group. Osteocalcin levels were notably higher in Group A (120 ng/mL) compared with Group B (95 ng/mL), confirming superior osteoinductive activity. Conclusion: Autografts demonstrated superior osteoinductive potential compared with allografts in mandibular defect models, as evidenced by earlier and more complete bone regeneration. Although allografts remain a viable alternative, their delayed healing response highlights the need for further improvements in graft preparation and bioengineering. Autografts continue to be the preferred choice for mandibular reconstruction when feasible.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1924_24allograftsautograftsbone graftsbone regenerationhistomorphometrymandibular defectsosteoinduction
spellingShingle Pratap Movaniya
Ritu Chhatbar
Sumit Bhatt
Ngangbam Johnson Sing
Ashtha Arya
Hiral Parmar
Comparison of Osteoinductive Potential of Autografts vs. Allografts in Mandibular Defect Models
Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences
allografts
autografts
bone grafts
bone regeneration
histomorphometry
mandibular defects
osteoinduction
title Comparison of Osteoinductive Potential of Autografts vs. Allografts in Mandibular Defect Models
title_full Comparison of Osteoinductive Potential of Autografts vs. Allografts in Mandibular Defect Models
title_fullStr Comparison of Osteoinductive Potential of Autografts vs. Allografts in Mandibular Defect Models
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Osteoinductive Potential of Autografts vs. Allografts in Mandibular Defect Models
title_short Comparison of Osteoinductive Potential of Autografts vs. Allografts in Mandibular Defect Models
title_sort comparison of osteoinductive potential of autografts vs allografts in mandibular defect models
topic allografts
autografts
bone grafts
bone regeneration
histomorphometry
mandibular defects
osteoinduction
url https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1924_24
work_keys_str_mv AT pratapmovaniya comparisonofosteoinductivepotentialofautograftsvsallograftsinmandibulardefectmodels
AT rituchhatbar comparisonofosteoinductivepotentialofautograftsvsallograftsinmandibulardefectmodels
AT sumitbhatt comparisonofosteoinductivepotentialofautograftsvsallograftsinmandibulardefectmodels
AT ngangbamjohnsonsing comparisonofosteoinductivepotentialofautograftsvsallograftsinmandibulardefectmodels
AT ashthaarya comparisonofosteoinductivepotentialofautograftsvsallograftsinmandibulardefectmodels
AT hiralparmar comparisonofosteoinductivepotentialofautograftsvsallograftsinmandibulardefectmodels