**1. Introduction**

[44] Bapna MS, Lautenschlager EP, Moser JB. The influences of electrical potential and surface finish on the fatigue life of surgical implant materials. J Biomed Mater Res

[45] Donald PJ. Cartilage grafting in facial reconstruction with special consideration of ir‐

[46] Terino EO. Chin and malar augmentation. In: Complications and problems in aes‐

[47] Yarmechuck MJ. Infraorbital rim augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;107(6):

[48] Sclafani AP, Thomas JR, Cox AJ, et al. Clinical and histologic response of subcutane‐ ous expanded polytetraflouroethylene and porous high density polyethylene im‐ plants to acute and early infection. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;123: 328–

[49] Cohen SR, Kawamoto HK. Infection of proplast malar implants following dental in‐

[50] Louis PJ, Cuzalina LA. Alloplastic augmentation of the face. Atlas Oral Maxillofac

radiated grafts. Laryngoscope 1986;96(7):786–807.

thetic plastic surgery. New York: NY; 1992. Ch 6.

jections. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;89(6):1148–51.

Surg Clin North Am 2000; 8(2):127–91.

1975;9(6):611–21.

568 A Textbook of Advanced Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Volume 2

1585–92.

36.

#### **1.1. The perfect bone graft**

In spite of the fact that the bone materials that are currently being used are not absolutely perfect,the bone graft material of choice must have 2 mandatory features:


In an immunological point of view, the graft should neither be rejected nor be contaminated to transmit microbial diseases. The graft should be biologically compatible, preferably resorbed after formation of new bone, though supplying a scaffold and sustaining mechanical stability for new bone regeneration. In a physiological point of view, a perfect bone graft substance should support the host osteogenically,osteoinductively and osteoconductively.
