Publication:
Bioactive Glass Graft vs Allograft in Benign Bone Lesions: A Retrospective Comparative Study

dc.contributor.authorİNCESOY M. A.
dc.contributor.authorSarikas M.
dc.contributor.authorKAYA H. B.
dc.contributor.authorYAVUZ A. D.
dc.contributor.authorSULAK B.
dc.contributor.authorOzdemir A. A.
dc.contributor.authorÖZARSLAN A. C.
dc.contributor.authorUZER G.
dc.contributor.authorYILDIZ F.
dc.contributor.authorYÜCEL S.
dc.contributor.authoret al.
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-16T21:50:28Z
dc.date.issued2025-01-01
dc.description.abstractBackground: Bioactive glass (BG) is a promising alternative to conventional autogenous and allogeneic bone grafts with osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and antimicrobial properties. The effects of its use in comparison to allograft in the context of benign bone lesions remain less explored. Purpose: We sought to compare the efficacy of 45S5 BG granules to allograft in treating benign bone lesions. Methods: This retrospective study compared the outcomes of 45S5 BG granules and allograft bone in 42 patients undergoing curettage for benign bone lesions. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the graft material used (n = 21 in each group). Radiological evaluation using the modified Neer classification and functional assessment using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score were performed. Complications and time to return to previous activity levels were also recorded. Results: No significant differences were found between the BG and allograft groups in terms of postoperative Neer scores, postoperative MSTS scores, complication rates, or time to return to previous activity levels. Both groups showed significant improvement in MSTS scores over time, although improvement in MSTS scores for both groups did not reach the minimal clinically important difference, suggesting that the observed changes may not be clinically significant. Conclusion: This retrospective study found that BG demonstrated comparable efficacy to allograft cancellous bone in the treatment of benign bone lesions, suggesting that it may serve as a suitable alternative. Further study should focus on longer-term follow-up and larger sample sizes to further elucidate the role of BG in the management of these lesions.
dc.identifier.citationİNCESOY M. A., Sarikas M., KAYA H. B., YAVUZ A. D., SULAK B., Ozdemir A. A., ÖZARSLAN A. C., UZER G., YILDIZ F., YÜCEL S., et al., "Bioactive Glass Graft vs Allograft in Benign Bone Lesions: A Retrospective Comparative Study", HSS Journal, 2025
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/15563316251321825
dc.identifier.issn1556-3316
dc.identifier.pubmed40125295
dc.identifier.scopus105000482600
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=105000482600&origin=inward
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12645/40534
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectTıp
dc.subjectCerrahi Tıp Bilimleri
dc.subjectOrtopedi ve Travmatoloji
dc.subjectSağlık Bilimleri
dc.subjectMedicine
dc.subjectSurgery Medicine Sciences
dc.subjectOrthopedics and Traumatology
dc.subjectHealth Sciences
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp (Med)
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp
dc.subjectCerrahi
dc.subjectOrtopedi
dc.subjectClinical Medicine (Med)
dc.subjectClinical Medicine
dc.subjectSurgery
dc.subjectOrthopedics
dc.subjectOrtopedi ve Spor Hekimliği
dc.subjectOrthopedics and Sports Medicine
dc.subjectallograft
dc.subjectbenign bone lesions
dc.subjectbioactive glass
dc.subjectbone graft substitute
dc.subjectcomparative study
dc.titleBioactive Glass Graft vs Allograft in Benign Bone Lesions: A Retrospective Comparative Study
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.avesis.idf9fdbfcd-957c-4818-8778-5a279e50a2ff

Files