FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Equine Vet J / Clinical and research applications of synthetic bone substit...
Equine veterinary journal2026; doi: 10.1002/evj.70151

Clinical and research applications of synthetic bone substitutes in equine veterinary medicine: A systematic review.

Abstract: Bone grafting in equine medicine offers a promising contribution to treating orthopaedic developmental diseases and chondral, osteochondral and segmental bone defects. Among grafts, synthetic bone substitutes-alloplastics-show favourable biological properties addressing numerous limitations presented by autografts, xenografts and allografts. Objective: To compile and disseminate clinical data and research findings from existing publications on the use of alloplastics in horses. Methods: Systematic review. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis 2020 guidelines, literature searches were conducted in PUBMED, Scopus and Web of Knowledge. The inclusion criteria covered case reports and research articles on the use of alloplastics in the horses. The selected research articles were grouped considering clinical and experimental studies. A risk of bias assessment was performed for the research articles. Results: Use of synthetic bone substitutes in horses has been described in 17 publications to date, grouped as 5 case reports and 12 research articles. The latter were subdivided by main study issue-as involved subchondral cystic lesion, aneurysmal bone cyst and chondral, osteochondral or segmental bone defects. The four treatment models were distinguished and described. Conclusions: The lack of clinical and alloplastics data in some records. Clinical evaluation in some studies was inconsistent or incomplete. A risk of bias particularly arises from missing data, outcome measurement and the reported results. Conclusions: In equine medicine, hydroxyapatite, calcium phosphate and β-tricalcium phosphate were the leading alloplastics applied. When applied alone, they demonstrated osteoconductive and osteoinductive properties, while the addition of biologically active additives-especially autologous bone marrow-enhanced these biological properties toward osteogenic and chondrogenic effects. Treatment outcomes were generally favourable, although segmental bone defect treatment requires considering the limitations associated with weight-bearing effects. These findings suggest alloplastics in horses may be particularly beneficial for treating certain bone diseases.
© 2026 The Author(s). Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2026-02-24 PubMed ID: 41732106DOI: 10.1002/evj.70151Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Review

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This systematic review examines the use of synthetic bone substitutes, known as alloplastics, in equine veterinary medicine for treating various bone-related conditions.
  • It compiles clinical and research data on their effectiveness, biological properties, and potential applications in horses.

Introduction to Synthetic Bone Substitutes in Equine Medicine

  • Bone grafting is an important technique used to treat orthopedic developmental diseases and bone defects in horses.
  • Conventional grafts include autografts (from the same individual), allografts (from another individual of the same species), and xenografts (from different species), but all have limitations such as availability, immune rejection, or disease transmission risk.
  • Alloplastics (synthetic bone substitutes) offer favorable biological properties and avoid many of these issues.
  • This review focuses on clinical and research applications of alloplastics specifically in horses.

Methods

  • The authors conducted a systematic literature search using databases like PUBMED, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge following PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
  • They included published case reports and research articles that involved the use of synthetic bone substitutes in horses.
  • Selected studies were categorized into clinical and experimental groups.
  • A risk of bias assessment was performed focusing on issues like missing data and measurement inconsistencies.

Results

  • A total of 17 publications met inclusion criteria: 5 were case reports and 12 were research articles.
  • The research articles addressed four main types of bone conditions:
    • Subchondral cystic lesions
    • Aneurysmal bone cysts
    • Chondral (cartilage), osteochondral (bone and cartilage), and segmental bone defects
  • Four treatment models using alloplastics were described, although specifics were not detailed in the abstract.
  • Common synthetic materials used in these treatments included:
    • Hydroxyapatite
    • Calcium phosphate
    • β-tricalcium phosphate

Biological Properties and Enhancement Strategies

  • When used alone, these synthetic substitutes demonstrated:
    • Osteoconductive properties – providing a scaffold for new bone growth
    • Osteoinductive properties – encouraging new bone formation by stimulating precursor cells
  • The addition of biologically active substances, especially autologous bone marrow (taken from the same horse), enhanced these effects:
    • Boosted osteogenic activity – formation of new bone cells
    • Promoted chondrogenic effects – cartilage repair or regeneration

Clinical Outcomes and Considerations

  • Treatment outcomes using synthetic bone substitutes generally were favorable across studied conditions.
  • However, segmental bone defects, which involve larger and weight-bearing areas, require special consideration due to mechanical limitations.
  • The review noted inconsistencies and incompleteness in some clinical evaluations, limiting the strength of conclusions.
  • Bias was detected mainly from missing data, varying outcome measurements, and incomplete reporting.

Conclusions and Implications

  • The systematic review highlights that alloplastics are promising materials for treating various bone diseases in horses.
  • These materials offer advantages over traditional grafts, such as reduced immunogenic reaction and availability.
  • Combining synthetic materials with biological additives like bone marrow may further improve bone healing and cartilage repair.
  • More rigorous, standardized clinical studies with complete data are needed to better assess efficacy, especially for weight-bearing segmental defects.
  • Overall, synthetic bone substitutes represent an important, evolving tool in equine orthopedics for addressing developmental and traumatic bone conditions.

Cite This Article

APA
Skierbiszewska K, Turek B, Jasiński T, Kaczorowski M, Kozłowska N, Higuchi J, Domino M. (2026). Clinical and research applications of synthetic bone substitutes in equine veterinary medicine: A systematic review. Equine Vet J. https://doi.org/10.1002/evj.70151

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Skierbiszewska, Katarzyna
  • Department of Large Animal Diseases and Clinic, Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS - SGGW), Warsaw, Poland.
Turek, Bernard
  • Department of Large Animal Diseases and Clinic, Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS - SGGW), Warsaw, Poland.
Jasiński, Tomasz
  • Department of Large Animal Diseases and Clinic, Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS - SGGW), Warsaw, Poland.
Kaczorowski, Michał
  • Private Equine Practice, Grodzisk Mazowiecki, Poland.
Kozłowska, Natalia
  • Department of Large Animal Diseases and Clinic, Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS - SGGW), Warsaw, Poland.
Higuchi, Julia
  • Laboratory of Nanostructures and Nanomedicine, Institute of High Pressure Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), Warsaw, Poland.
Domino, Małgorzata
  • Department of Large Animal Diseases and Clinic, Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS - SGGW), Warsaw, Poland.

Grant Funding

  • The publication was (co)financed by Science development fund of the Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW.

References

This article includes 71 references
  1. Kolvek F, Krešáková L, Vdoviaková K, Medvecký Ľ, Žert Z. Modified proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis in a yearling filly with an osseous cyst‐like lesion in the proximal phalanx.. Animals 2021;11(4):948.
  2. Stack JD, Levingstone TJ, Lalor W, Sanders R, Kearney C, O'Brien FJ. Repair of large osteochondritis dissecans lesions using a novel multilayered tissue engineered construct in an equine athlete.. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2016;11(10):2785–2795.
  3. Tsuzuki N, Seo JP, Haneda S, Yamada K, Furuoka H, Tabata Y. Bioengineered osteochondral precursor for treatment of osteochondritis dissecans in a thoroughbred filly.. Aust Vet J 2013;91(10):411–415.
  4. Pérez‐Nogués M, Manso‐Díaz G, Spirito M, López‐Sanromán J. Treatment comparison for medial femoral condyle subchondral cystic lesions and prognosis in yearling thoroughbred racehorse prospects.. Animals 2024;14(7):1122.
  5. Pérez‐Nogués M, López‐Sanromán J, Spirito M, Manso‐Díaz G. Treatments and prognosis for subchondral cystic lesions in the distal extremities in thoroughbred prospect racehorses.. Animals 2023;13(18):2838.
  6. Ravanetti P, Lechartier A, Hamon M, Zucca E. A composite absorbable implant used to treat subchondral bone cysts in 38 horses.. Equine Vet J 2021;54(1):97–105.
  7. Smanik LE, Selberg KT, Mason GL, Brock M, Stewart HL, Goodrich LR. Evaluation of a modified subchondroplasty technique in an equine full‐thickness cartilage defect model: a pilot study.. Am J Vet Res 2023;84(4):ajvr.22.12.0219.
  8. Kon E, Mutini A, Arcangeli E, Delcogliano M, Filardo G, Nicoli Aldini N. Novel nanostructured scaffold for osteochondral regeneration: pilot study in horses.. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2010;4(4):300–308.
  9. McCarrel TM, Pownder SL, Gilbert S, Koff MF, Castiglione E, Saska RA. Two‐year evaluation of osteochondral repair with a novel biphasic graft saturated in bone marrow in an equine model.. Cartilage 2017;8(4):406–416.
  10. Tampieri A, Sandri M, Landi E, Pressato D. Biomimetic hybrid composites to repair osteochondral lesions.. Key Eng Mater 2008;361:927–930.
  11. Grzeskowiak RM, Alghazali KM, Hecht S, Donnell RL, Doherty TJ, Smith CK. Influence of a novel scaffold composed of polyurethane, hydroxyapatite, and decellularized bone particles on the healing of fourth metacarpal defects in mares.. Vet Surg 2021;50(5):1117–1127.
  12. Nóbrega FS, Selim MB, Arana‐Chavez VE, Correa L, Ferreira MP, Zoppa AL. Histologic and immunohistochemical evaluation of biocompatibility of castor oil polyurethane polymer with calcium carbonate in equine bone tissue.. Am J Vet Res 2017;78(10):1210–1214.
  13. Perrier M, Lu Y, Nemke B, Kobayashi H, Peterson A, Markel M. Acceleration of second and fourth metatarsal fracture healing with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‐2/calcium phosphate cement in horses.. Vet Surg 2008;37(7):648–655.
  14. Waselau M, Samii VF, Weisbrode SE, Litsky AS, Bertone AL. Effects of a magnesium adhesive cement on bone stability and healing following a metatarsal osteotomy in horses.. Am J Vet Res 2007;68(4):370–378.
  15. David F, Levingstone TJ, Schneeweiss W, de Swarte M, Jahns H, Gleeson JP. Enhanced bone healing using collagen–hydroxyapatite scaffold implantation in the treatment of a large multiloculated mandibular aneurysmal bone cyst in a thoroughbred filly.. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2015;9(10):1193–1199.
  16. Spoormakers TJ, Heim C, Vermunt L, Fürst A, Rovel T. Computed tomographic features and surgical treatment of equine mandibular aneurysmal bone cysts with β‐tricalcium phosphate in a multicenter case series. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2023;261(12):1–9.
  17. Stashak TS, Adams OR. Collection of bone grafts from the tuber coxae of the horse. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1975;167(5):397–400.
  18. DeBowes RM, Grant BD, Bagby GW, Gallina AM, Sande RD, Ratzlaff MH. Cervical vertebral interbody fusion in the horse: a comparative study of bovine xenografts and autografts supported by stainless steel baskets. Am J Vet Res 1984;45(1):191–199.
  19. Figueroa RJ, Koch TG, Betts DH. Osteogenic differentiation of equine cord blood multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells within coralline hydroxyapatite scaffolds in vitro. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011;24(5):354–362.
  20. Jones RD, Milne DW, Fetter AW. Cortical bone allografting in the horse. Vet Surg 1981;10(1):1–11.
  21. Correa‐Piña BA, Castillo‐Paz AM, Davila U, Rodriguez‐Garcia ME. Extraction and physicochemical characterization of hydroxyapatites from horse humerus bones of different ages (1, 3, 6, and 8 years old) calcined at low temperature. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2024;112(10):e35484.
  22. Jackson WA, Stick JA, Sp A, Nickels FA. The effect of compacted cancellous bone grafting on the healing of subchondral bone defects of the medial femoral condyle in horses. Vet Surg 2000;29(1):8–16.
  23. McDuffee LA, Anderson GI. In vitro comparison of equine cancellous bone graft donor sites and tibial periosteum as sources of viable osteoprogenitors. Vet Surg 2003;32(5):455–463.
  24. Pezzanite L, Goodrich LR. Complications of bone graft harvesting, handling, and implantation. Complications in equine surgery. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2021. p. 79–86.
  25. Jackman BR, Baxter GM. Treatment of a mandibular bone cyst by use of a corticocancellous bone graft in a horse. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992;201(6):892–894.
  26. Sauer FJ, Verhaar N, Geburek F. Maternal allogeneic cancellous bone graft for the treatment of osteitis along the physeal scar of the proximal metatarsus in a foal. Vet Surg 2023;52(3):467–477.
  27. de Fernanz Grado G, Keller L, Idoux‐Gillet Y, Wagner Q, Musset AM, Benkirane‐Jessel N. Bone substitutes: a review of their characteristics, clinical use, and perspectives for large bone defects management. J Tissue Eng 2018;9:2041731418776819.
  28. Albrektsson T, Johansson C. Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur Spine J 2001;10(S2):S96–S101.
  29. Kelly J. A critical review of the current state of bone grafting in orthopaedic surgery. Bone Bulletin 2025;3(1):13.
  30. Roberts TT, Rosenbaum AJ. Bone grafts, bone substitutes and orthobiologics: the bridge between basic science and clinical advancements in fracture healing. Organogenesis 2012;8(4):114–124.
  31. Chen MJ, Whiteley JP, Please CP, Ehlicke F, Waters SL, Byrne HM. Identifying chondrogenesis strategies for tissue engineering of articular cartilage.. J Tissue Eng 2019;10:2041731419842431.
  32. Hu AJ, Grant B, Cannon J. Cervical vertebral osteomyelitis in a 4‐month‐old foal.. Equine Vet Educ 2009;21(2):71–75.
  33. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement.. BMJ 2009;339:332–336.
  34. Ryan R, Synnot A, Prictor M, Hill S. Data Extraction Template for Included Studies.. Cochrane Consumers And Communication Group, The Cochrane Collaboration 2016. p. 1–25.
  35. Evidence‐Based Medicine Ratings of the American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR). Accessed April 25, 2025. https://www.ajnr.org/page/content/EBM
  36. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2. Oxford Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine. [cited 2025 Oct 24]. Available from: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence
  37. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.
  38. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M. ROBINS‐I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non‐randomised studies of interventions.. BMJ 2016;355:i4919.
  39. Santschi EM. Equine subchondral lucencies: knowledge from the medial femoral condyle.. Vet Surg 2024;53(3):426–436.
  40. Lischer CJ. Successful treatment of vertebral body osteomyelitis in a foal: a highlight in equine surgery.. Equine Vet Educ 2009;21(2):76–78.
  41. Markel MD. Bone grafts and bone substitutes.. Equine Fracture Repair 2020. p. 163–172.
  42. Ivanova N, Ivanov S, Peev S, Dikova T. Types of bone substitutes and their application in regenerative medicine: a systematic review.. J Funct Biomater 2025;16(9):341.
  43. Festas AJ, Ramos A, Davim JP. Medical devices biomaterials – a review.. Proc Inst Mech Eng L J Mater Des Appl 2020;234(1):218–228.
  44. Bohner M, Santoni BLG, Döbelin N. β‐Tricalcium phosphate for bone substitution: synthesis and properties.. Acta Biomater 2020;113:23–41.
  45. Szałaj U, Świderska‐Środa A, Chodara A, Gierlotka S, Łojkowski W. Nanoparticle size effect on water vapour adsorption by hydroxyapatite.. Nanomaterials 2019;9(7):1005.
  46. Skierbiszewska K, Szałaj U, Turek B, Sych O, Jasiński T, Łojkowski W. Radiological properties of nano‐hydroxyapatite compared to natural equine hydroxyapatite quantified using dual‐energy CT and high‐field MR.. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med 2024;61:102765.
  47. Santos CLZB, Luklinska ZB, Clarke RL, Davy KWM. Hydroxyapatite as a filler for dental composite materials: mechanical properties and in vitro bioactivity of composites.. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2001;12(7):565–573.
  48. Bhatnagar D, Gautam S, Sonowal L, Bhinder SS, Ghosh S, Pati F. Enhancing bone implants: magnesium‐doped hydroxyapatite for stronger, bioactive, and biocompatible applications.. ACS Appl Bio Mater 2024;7(4):2272–2282.
  49. Ambard AJ, Mueninghoff L. Calcium phosphate cement: review of mechanical and biological properties.. J Prosthodont 2006;15(5):321–328.
  50. Mohammed AH, Shariff KA, Wahjuningrum DA, Bakar MHA, Mohamad H. A comprehensive review of the effects of porosity and macro‐ and micropore formations in porous β‐TCP scaffolds on cell responses.. J Aust Ceram Soc 2023;59(4):865–879.
  51. Lu T, Liang Y, Zhang L, Yuan X, Ye J. Fabrication of β‐TCP ceramic scaffold with hierarchical pore structure using 3D printing and porogen: investigation of osteoinductive and bone defects repair properties.. Appl Mater Today 2024;40:102351.
  52. Betz RR. Limitations of autograft and allograft: new synthetic solutions.. Orthopedics 2002;25(Suppl):561–570.
  53. Farah S, Anderson DG, Langer R. Physical and mechanical properties of PLA, and their functions in widespread applications – a comprehensive review.. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2016;107:367–392.
  54. Vaccaro AR. The role of the osteoconductive scaffold in synthetic bone graft.. Orthopedics 2002;25(5):S571–S578.
  55. Gao L, Cucchiarini M, Madry H. Cyst formation in the subchondral bone following cartilage repair.. Clin Transl Med 2020;10(8):e248.
  56. Huang R, Niu X, Li X, Li X. Applications of type I and II collagen in osteochondral tissue engineering: respective features and future perspectives.. Medicine in Novel Technology and Devices 2024;24:100328.
  57. Nandi SK, Roy S, Mukherjee P, Kundu B, De DK, Basu D. Orthopaedic applications of bone graft & graft substitutes: a review.. Indian J Med Res 2010;132(1):5–30.
  58. Maevskaia E, Khera N, Ghayor C, Bhattacharya I, Guerrero J, Nicholls F. Three‐dimensional printed hydroxyapatite bone substitutes designed by a novel periodic minimal surface algorithm are highly osteoconductive.. 3D Print Addit Manuf 2023;10(5):905–916.
  59. Meesuk L, Suwanprateeb J, Thammarakcharoen F, Tantrawatpan C, Kheolamai P, Palang I. Osteogenic differentiation and proliferation potentials of human bone marrow and umbilical cord‐derived mesenchymal stem cells on the 3D‐printed hydroxyapatite scaffolds.. Sci Rep 2022;12(1):19509.
  60. Kang HJ, Makkar P, Padalhin AR, Lee GH, Im SB, Lee BT. Comparative study on biodegradation and biocompatibility of multichannel calcium phosphate based bone substitutes.. Materials Science and Engineering: C 2020;110:110694.
  61. Kumar A, Zhang Y, Terracciano A, Zhao X, Su TL, Kalyon DM. Load‐bearing biodegradable polycaprolactone‐poly (lactic‐co‐glycolic acid)‐beta tri‐calcium phosphate scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration.. Polym Adv Technol 2019;30(5):1189–1197.
  62. Nifant'ev I, Tavtorkin A, Komarov P, Kretov E, Korchagina S, Chinova M. Dispersant and protective roles of amphiphilic poly (ethylene phosphate) block copolymers in polyester/bone mineral composites.. IJMS 2023;24(13):11175.
  63. Kang TY, Seo JY, Ryu JH, Kim KM, Kwon JS. Improvement of the mechanical and biological properties of bioactive glasses by the addition of zirconium oxide (ZrO2) as a synthetic bone graft substitute.. J Biomed Mater Res A 2021;109(7):1196–1208.
  64. Massari L, Saracco A, Marchesini S, Gambuti E, Delorenzi A, Caruso G. Safety of a porous hydroxyapatite bone substitute in orthopedics and traumatology: a multi‐centric clinical study.. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 2024;9(2):71.
  65. Kowalewicz K, Vorndran E, Feichtner F, Waselau AC, Brueckner M, Meyer‐Lindenberg A. In‐vivo degradation behavior and osseointegration of 3D powder‐printed calcium magnesium phosphate cement scaffolds.. Materials 2021;14(4):946.
  66. Jung KJ, Sarkar SK, Kim WJ, Kim BR, Park JS, Lee BT. Bone regeneration by multichannel cylindrical granular bone substitute for regeneration of bone in cases of tumor, fracture, and arthroplasty.. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19(14):8228.
  67. Somasundaram K, Huber CP, Babu V, Zadeh H. Proximal humeral fractures: the role of calcium sulphate augmentation and extended deltoid splitting approach in internal fixation using locking plates.. Injury 2013;44(4):481–487.
  68. Marongiu G, Verona M, Cardoni G, Capone A. Synthetic bone substitutes and mechanical devices for the augmentation of osteoporotic proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of clinical studies.. J Funct Biomater 2020;11(2):29.
  69. Amid R, Kheiri A, Kheiri L, Kadkhodazadeh M, Ekhlasmandkermani M. Structural and chemical features of xenograft bone substitutes: A systematic review of in vitro studies.. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2021;68(6):1432–1452.
  70. Nobert KM. The regulation of veterinary regenerative medicine and the potential impact of such regulation on clinicians and firms commercializing these treatments.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2011;27(2):383–391.
  71. Li X, Lu W, Xu X, Wang Y, Chen SC. Advanced optical methods and materials for fabricating 3D tissue scaffolds.. Light Adv Manuf 2022;3(3):493–524.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,005 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.