Which grafting option has a lower rate of surgical revision compared to recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein?

Autografts are recognized for their effectiveness in various surgical applications, particularly in orthopedics and reconstructive procedures. The reason they have a lower rate of surgical revision compared to recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP) largely comes down to their biological compatibility and integration with the recipient site. Since autografts are harvested from the patient's own body, they typically exhibit superior osteogenic potential, which means they have the inherent ability to promote bone growth and healing.

In contrast, while rhBMP can aid in bone regeneration, its outcomes can be variable and may not always lead to the same level of integration and healing as an autograft. For instance, there may be cases of inadequate bone formation or complications related to the immune response, which can necessitate additional surgeries.

The options of synthetic grafts, allografts, and composite grafts, while useful in certain applications, generally do not offer the same biological advantages as autografts. Synthetic grafts may lack the biological properties needed for effective bone healing, allografts can have issues related to graft rejection or disease transmission, and composite grafts, which combine different materials, can introduce complexities that impact their effectiveness. Therefore, autografts stand out as the option with a lower