This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HEIPLE, K. G.
Right arrow Articles by HERNDON, C. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by HEIPLE, K. G.
Right arrow Articles by HERNDON, C. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1963;45:1593-1616.
© 1963 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

A Comparative Study of the Healing Process Following Different Types of Bone Transplantation

KINGSBURY G. HEIPLE M.D.1, SAMUEL W. CHASE PH.D.1, and CHARLES H. HERNDON M.D.1

1 From the Division of Orthopaedic Surgery and the Department of Anatomy, Western Reserve University School of Medicine and University Hospitals, Cleveland

A controlled comparative study was made of the osteogenic properties of various types of bone grafts in dogs. A rating scale was applied to the histological criteria used for the evaluation of the grafts, and a tabular and statistical evaluation of the results was carried out. Fresh autogenous bone was clearly superior; freezedried homogenous bone was the next highest in rating. The rest of the grafts tested rated in the following order: frozen homogenous, decalcified homogenous, frozen irradiated homogenous, freeze-dried irradiated homogenous, fresh homogenous, deproteinized heterogenous, and deproteinized homogenous. An indication of the approximate level of significance of this ranking was given. The deficiencies in the data related to the great variability in the response of the animals and the small numbers of animals at each test interval are discussed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.Home page
S. J. Miller
Hammer Toe Correction by Arthrodesis of the Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Using a Cortical Bone Allograft Pin
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, November 1, 2002; 92(10): 563 - 569.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
S. L. Salkeld, L. P. Patron, R. L. Barrack, and S. D. Cook
The Effect of Osteogenic Protein-1 on the Healing of Segmental Bone Defects Treated with Autograft or Allograft Bone
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., June 1, 2001; 83(6): 803 - 816.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
S. STEVENSON, X. Q. LI, D. T. DAVY, L. KLEIN, and V. M. GOLDBERG
Critical Biological Determinants of Incorporation of Non-Vascularized Cortical Bone Grafts. Quantification of a Complex Process and Structure*{{dagger}}
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., January 1, 1997; 79(1): 1 - 16.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
P. Sabiston, C. Frank, T. Lam, and N. Shrive
Allograft ligament transplantation: A morphological and biochemical evaluation of a medial collateral ligament complex in a rabbit model
Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 1990; 18(2): 160 - 168.
[Abstract] [PDF]