Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market Size, Share, and Trends Analysis - Global - 2025-2031 - MedCore - Includes: Allograft Market, Demineralized Bone Matrix Market, and 1 more
Description
Global Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market Report, 2025 Edition
The global orthopedic bone graft substitute (BGS) market was valued at approximately 2.83 billion dollars in 2024. The market is expected to grow at a 4.1 percent CAGR to reach nearly 3.75 billion dollars by 2031. Growth is sustained by high unmet clinical needs in spine, trauma, oncology and large joint reconstruction, along with steady adoption of synthetic and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) products.
This edition covers allograft bone graft substitutes, DBM allograft BGS, and synthetic BGS across major anatomical indications. It includes device-level units, average selling prices, market values, procedure numbers, growth rates, and competitive shares. It also reviews recent mergers and acquisitions, technology shifts, pricing trends and key clinical factors shaping demand in bone grafting and reconstruction.
The report provides historical data to 2021 and forecasts to 2031. It includes qualitative analysis of market drivers, limiters, clinical workflow trends and supply constraints that influence short-term and long-term growth.
Market Overview
Orthopedic bone graft substitutes are used to support bone healing in procedures where native bone cannot regenerate adequately. They are used in spine surgery, non-union and fresh fracture trauma, large joint reconstruction, craniomaxillofacial reconstruction, oncology-related bone defects and foot and ankle reconstruction.
Market growth is influenced by several global demographic and clinical trends. The aging population continues to increase demand for procedures that rely on BGS products, such as spinal fusion, hip reconstruction and revision trauma surgery. The number of unit sales is expected to rise steadily worldwide, although growth is expected to be slower in well-developed healthcare markets that have mature access to biomaterials.
Lower-income regions are projected to show the strongest unit growth as access to orthopedic care expands and as synthetic BGS products become more affordable. Synthetic materials help improve accessibility because they are widely available, do not depend on donor availability, and eliminate the need for autograft harvesting.
Average selling prices continue to decline due to competition, procurement standardization and bundled pricing strategies. While volumes are increasing, declining ASPs limit the overall growth of the market. These pricing pressures are especially visible in countries where hospitals receive BGS materials at discounted rates or as part of broader implant contracts.
Across both high-income and developing regions, the clinical shift toward synthetic and DBM materials remains a strong influence on product adoption. Clinicians continue to seek materials that are easy to use, consistent in quality and associated with a low complication risk. As a result, synthetic products are gaining share from both allograft and autograft techniques.
Market Drivers
Clinical Efficacy and Expanding Applications
A major driver of the market is the clinical performance of non-allograft bone graft substitutes. DBM products offer strong osteoconductivity and are easy to shape, pack and hydrate. Their ability to support bone regeneration without the need for donor harvesting makes them appealing in spine, trauma and joint reconstruction procedures.
Synthetic bone graft substitutes provide reliable osteoconductive scaffolding and increasingly mimic natural bone properties. While they remain less osteoinductive than autograft materials, they offer consistency, predictable handling and reduced procedural complexity. They also avoid the variability associated with donor-derived tissue.
Low Risk of Complications
Synthetic materials carry a very low risk of disease transmission and immunogenic rejection. This is a significant advantage over allograft materials, particularly for patients who may be at higher risk of immune response or those with limited donor tissue matching options. Avoiding a separate autograft harvest procedure also reduces pain, surgical time and the potential for donor-site morbidity.
These benefits have contributed to a continued decline in autograft usage and supported stronger adoption of synthetic and DBM materials.
Growing Acceptance of Synthetic Bone Grafts
Synthetic bone graft substitutes are increasingly seen as a practical and accessible option for both surgeons and patients. Their affordability, supply stability and ease of availability make them attractive alternatives to allografts and DBMs. Manufacturers offer a wide range of formulations, such as granules, putties, strips and moldable matrices, which allows physicians to select products tailored to specific anatomical needs.
Globally, patients have become more informed about synthetic options and are more comfortable with biomaterial-based solutions. Combined with expanding distribution in emerging healthcare markets, synthetic products are positioned to maintain a strong growth trajectory.
Market Limiters
Product Bundling and Price Compression
Bundling strategies have lowered the selling prices of many synthetic BGS products. Companies increasingly provide complimentary graft materials when hospitals purchase their implant systems. This practice encourages volume adoption but reduces market-level ASPs, especially in regions with high contract penetration.
Allograft materials are also affected. In markets such as Italy, hospitals often receive allograft products for free as part of larger orthopedic procurement arrangements. This makes it harder for companies to maintain profitable price points and contributes to long-term pricing declines.
Constraints on Live Tissue Availability
Allograft supply depends on donor availability, tissue bank operations and logistics. Seasonal variation, fluctuations in donation rates, and funding limitations can all affect the reliability of supply. Tissue banks must manage screening, processing and storage requirements carefully, which adds cost and introduces potential bottlenecks.
When supply tightens, hospitals may shift toward synthetic or DBM products, but the limitations still affect overall market stability, especially for procedures where surgeons prefer allograft materials.
Pricing Pressure From New Entrants
New market participants often enter with significantly lower-priced products to gain share. While this creates more options for hospitals, it accelerates price erosion and raises the competitive pressure on established suppliers. As purchasers adjust to lower price expectations, achieving sustainable margins becomes more challenging.
This trend is especially strong in developing markets where cost sensitivity is high and procurement decisions emphasize affordability.
Market Coverage and Data Scope
Quantitative Coverage
Market size
Market shares
Market forecasts
Growth rates
Units sold
Average selling prices
Qualitative Coverage
Market growth trends
Market limiters
Competitive analysis and SWOT for top competitors
Mergers and acquisitions
Company profiles and product portfolios
FDA recalls
Disruptive technologies
Disease overviews and demand influencers
Time Frame
Historical data to 2021
Base year 2024
Forecasts to 2031
Data Sources
Primary interviews with industry leaders
Government and physician datasets
Regulatory data
Hospital private data
Import and export data
iData Research internal databases
Markets Covered and Segmentation
Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Market
Further Segmented Into:
Spine
Trauma
Oncology
Craniomaxillofacials
Large Joint Reconstruction
Foot Reconstructions
Demineralized Bone Matrix Market
Further Segmented Into:
Spine
Trauma
Oncology
Craniomaxillofacials
Large Joint Reconstruction
Foot Reconstructions
Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market
Further Segmented Into:
Spine
Trauma
Oncology
Craniomaxillofacials
Large Joint Reconstruction
Foot Reconstructions
Competitive Analysis
In 2024, Medtronic held the leading share of the global BGS market. The company leads the DBM market with its well-established Grafton product line, which was the first fiber-based DBM allograft BGS. Medtronic also has a strong position in the synthetic segment through its MASTERGRAFT portfolio, which includes granules, moldable putty, flexible strip formats and the MASTERGRAFT Matrix EXT.
Stryker held the second-leading market share. The company offers multiple product families, including Vitoss, ALLOMATRIX, FUSIONFLEX and PRO-STIM. These products are widely used across trauma, spine and joint reconstruction procedures.
DePuy Synthes ranked third in the global BGS market. Its key offerings include the DBX DBM product line and the chronOS synthetic BGS portfolio. These products support the company’s strong presence across spine and reconstructive orthopedic markets.
The competitive landscape also includes regional tissue banks, emerging synthetic manufacturers and specialty companies focused on bone regeneration. Price competition, innovation in carrier materials and improved osteoconductive formulations remain core areas of differentiation.
Technology and Practice Trends
Orthopedic surgeons continue to favor materials that deliver predictable handling, consistent quality and favorable healing outcomes. Several key trends are shaping clinical practice:
Shift toward synthetic formulations
Synthetic grafts continue to gain share due to supply reliability, reduced complication risk and broader availability. Companies are refining their materials to improve porosity, resorption rates and structural integrity.
Advancements in DBM carriers and consistency
Manufacturers are improving DBM handling and viscosity through better carriers and standardized processing techniques. Fiber-based DBM formulations remain popular for ease of use and graft containment.
Preference for minimally invasive solutions
As minimally invasive spine and trauma procedures expand, surgeons require products that are easy to deliver through small incisions and compatible with instrumentation.
Growth in oncology and reconstructive applications
Rising multimorbidity, aging populations and improved survival rates for cancer patients contribute to demand for BGS products in tumor-related bone defects.
Increasing emphasis on cost containment
Hospitals are consolidating procurement across implant systems, bone grafting materials and biologics. As a result, graft products are increasingly selected based on contracted pricing and product standardization.
Geography
This report provides global coverage across North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.
Why This Report
Which BGS product category is positioned to grow the fastest over the forecast period, and what factors support this outlook?
How are declining ASPs affecting growth, and where are synthetic products gaining share from DBM and allograft materials?
What clinical, demographic and supply factors are driving procedure volumes in spine, trauma and oncology?
How do procurement strategies influence pricing, and what role does product bundling play in compressing ASPs?
What competitive strategies are leaders such as Medtronic, Stryker and DePuy Synthes using to maintain share?
How will donor availability constraints affect allograft growth, and where will synthetic products fill the gap?
What are the most important product features surgeons prioritize across synthetic, DBM and allograft options?
This report answers these questions through detailed category-level data, competitive analysis and procedure-based forecasting.
About iData Research
iData Research is a premium market intelligence firm headquartered in Canada with offices across North America and Europe.
Over the last 20 years, the company has specialized in device-level sizing, procedure models, pricing trends, and competitive share across MedTech.
Since 2005, iData has supported global OEMs, mid-market innovators, and investors with triangulated data based on units and ASPs, with country-level forecasts and analyst access across Europe, North America, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and APAC.
Reports are available with flexible licensing to fit commercial, strategy, and investment workflows
The global orthopedic bone graft substitute (BGS) market was valued at approximately 2.83 billion dollars in 2024. The market is expected to grow at a 4.1 percent CAGR to reach nearly 3.75 billion dollars by 2031. Growth is sustained by high unmet clinical needs in spine, trauma, oncology and large joint reconstruction, along with steady adoption of synthetic and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) products.
This edition covers allograft bone graft substitutes, DBM allograft BGS, and synthetic BGS across major anatomical indications. It includes device-level units, average selling prices, market values, procedure numbers, growth rates, and competitive shares. It also reviews recent mergers and acquisitions, technology shifts, pricing trends and key clinical factors shaping demand in bone grafting and reconstruction.
The report provides historical data to 2021 and forecasts to 2031. It includes qualitative analysis of market drivers, limiters, clinical workflow trends and supply constraints that influence short-term and long-term growth.
Market Overview
Orthopedic bone graft substitutes are used to support bone healing in procedures where native bone cannot regenerate adequately. They are used in spine surgery, non-union and fresh fracture trauma, large joint reconstruction, craniomaxillofacial reconstruction, oncology-related bone defects and foot and ankle reconstruction.
Market growth is influenced by several global demographic and clinical trends. The aging population continues to increase demand for procedures that rely on BGS products, such as spinal fusion, hip reconstruction and revision trauma surgery. The number of unit sales is expected to rise steadily worldwide, although growth is expected to be slower in well-developed healthcare markets that have mature access to biomaterials.
Lower-income regions are projected to show the strongest unit growth as access to orthopedic care expands and as synthetic BGS products become more affordable. Synthetic materials help improve accessibility because they are widely available, do not depend on donor availability, and eliminate the need for autograft harvesting.
Average selling prices continue to decline due to competition, procurement standardization and bundled pricing strategies. While volumes are increasing, declining ASPs limit the overall growth of the market. These pricing pressures are especially visible in countries where hospitals receive BGS materials at discounted rates or as part of broader implant contracts.
Across both high-income and developing regions, the clinical shift toward synthetic and DBM materials remains a strong influence on product adoption. Clinicians continue to seek materials that are easy to use, consistent in quality and associated with a low complication risk. As a result, synthetic products are gaining share from both allograft and autograft techniques.
Market Drivers
Clinical Efficacy and Expanding Applications
A major driver of the market is the clinical performance of non-allograft bone graft substitutes. DBM products offer strong osteoconductivity and are easy to shape, pack and hydrate. Their ability to support bone regeneration without the need for donor harvesting makes them appealing in spine, trauma and joint reconstruction procedures.
Synthetic bone graft substitutes provide reliable osteoconductive scaffolding and increasingly mimic natural bone properties. While they remain less osteoinductive than autograft materials, they offer consistency, predictable handling and reduced procedural complexity. They also avoid the variability associated with donor-derived tissue.
Low Risk of Complications
Synthetic materials carry a very low risk of disease transmission and immunogenic rejection. This is a significant advantage over allograft materials, particularly for patients who may be at higher risk of immune response or those with limited donor tissue matching options. Avoiding a separate autograft harvest procedure also reduces pain, surgical time and the potential for donor-site morbidity.
These benefits have contributed to a continued decline in autograft usage and supported stronger adoption of synthetic and DBM materials.
Growing Acceptance of Synthetic Bone Grafts
Synthetic bone graft substitutes are increasingly seen as a practical and accessible option for both surgeons and patients. Their affordability, supply stability and ease of availability make them attractive alternatives to allografts and DBMs. Manufacturers offer a wide range of formulations, such as granules, putties, strips and moldable matrices, which allows physicians to select products tailored to specific anatomical needs.
Globally, patients have become more informed about synthetic options and are more comfortable with biomaterial-based solutions. Combined with expanding distribution in emerging healthcare markets, synthetic products are positioned to maintain a strong growth trajectory.
Market Limiters
Product Bundling and Price Compression
Bundling strategies have lowered the selling prices of many synthetic BGS products. Companies increasingly provide complimentary graft materials when hospitals purchase their implant systems. This practice encourages volume adoption but reduces market-level ASPs, especially in regions with high contract penetration.
Allograft materials are also affected. In markets such as Italy, hospitals often receive allograft products for free as part of larger orthopedic procurement arrangements. This makes it harder for companies to maintain profitable price points and contributes to long-term pricing declines.
Constraints on Live Tissue Availability
Allograft supply depends on donor availability, tissue bank operations and logistics. Seasonal variation, fluctuations in donation rates, and funding limitations can all affect the reliability of supply. Tissue banks must manage screening, processing and storage requirements carefully, which adds cost and introduces potential bottlenecks.
When supply tightens, hospitals may shift toward synthetic or DBM products, but the limitations still affect overall market stability, especially for procedures where surgeons prefer allograft materials.
Pricing Pressure From New Entrants
New market participants often enter with significantly lower-priced products to gain share. While this creates more options for hospitals, it accelerates price erosion and raises the competitive pressure on established suppliers. As purchasers adjust to lower price expectations, achieving sustainable margins becomes more challenging.
This trend is especially strong in developing markets where cost sensitivity is high and procurement decisions emphasize affordability.
Market Coverage and Data Scope
Quantitative Coverage
Market size
Market shares
Market forecasts
Growth rates
Units sold
Average selling prices
Qualitative Coverage
Market growth trends
Market limiters
Competitive analysis and SWOT for top competitors
Mergers and acquisitions
Company profiles and product portfolios
FDA recalls
Disruptive technologies
Disease overviews and demand influencers
Time Frame
Historical data to 2021
Base year 2024
Forecasts to 2031
Data Sources
Primary interviews with industry leaders
Government and physician datasets
Regulatory data
Hospital private data
Import and export data
iData Research internal databases
Markets Covered and Segmentation
Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Market
Further Segmented Into:
Spine
Trauma
Oncology
Craniomaxillofacials
Large Joint Reconstruction
Foot Reconstructions
Demineralized Bone Matrix Market
Further Segmented Into:
Spine
Trauma
Oncology
Craniomaxillofacials
Large Joint Reconstruction
Foot Reconstructions
Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market
Further Segmented Into:
Spine
Trauma
Oncology
Craniomaxillofacials
Large Joint Reconstruction
Foot Reconstructions
Competitive Analysis
In 2024, Medtronic held the leading share of the global BGS market. The company leads the DBM market with its well-established Grafton product line, which was the first fiber-based DBM allograft BGS. Medtronic also has a strong position in the synthetic segment through its MASTERGRAFT portfolio, which includes granules, moldable putty, flexible strip formats and the MASTERGRAFT Matrix EXT.
Stryker held the second-leading market share. The company offers multiple product families, including Vitoss, ALLOMATRIX, FUSIONFLEX and PRO-STIM. These products are widely used across trauma, spine and joint reconstruction procedures.
DePuy Synthes ranked third in the global BGS market. Its key offerings include the DBX DBM product line and the chronOS synthetic BGS portfolio. These products support the company’s strong presence across spine and reconstructive orthopedic markets.
The competitive landscape also includes regional tissue banks, emerging synthetic manufacturers and specialty companies focused on bone regeneration. Price competition, innovation in carrier materials and improved osteoconductive formulations remain core areas of differentiation.
Technology and Practice Trends
Orthopedic surgeons continue to favor materials that deliver predictable handling, consistent quality and favorable healing outcomes. Several key trends are shaping clinical practice:
Shift toward synthetic formulations
Synthetic grafts continue to gain share due to supply reliability, reduced complication risk and broader availability. Companies are refining their materials to improve porosity, resorption rates and structural integrity.
Advancements in DBM carriers and consistency
Manufacturers are improving DBM handling and viscosity through better carriers and standardized processing techniques. Fiber-based DBM formulations remain popular for ease of use and graft containment.
Preference for minimally invasive solutions
As minimally invasive spine and trauma procedures expand, surgeons require products that are easy to deliver through small incisions and compatible with instrumentation.
Growth in oncology and reconstructive applications
Rising multimorbidity, aging populations and improved survival rates for cancer patients contribute to demand for BGS products in tumor-related bone defects.
Increasing emphasis on cost containment
Hospitals are consolidating procurement across implant systems, bone grafting materials and biologics. As a result, graft products are increasingly selected based on contracted pricing and product standardization.
Geography
This report provides global coverage across North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.
Why This Report
Which BGS product category is positioned to grow the fastest over the forecast period, and what factors support this outlook?
How are declining ASPs affecting growth, and where are synthetic products gaining share from DBM and allograft materials?
What clinical, demographic and supply factors are driving procedure volumes in spine, trauma and oncology?
How do procurement strategies influence pricing, and what role does product bundling play in compressing ASPs?
What competitive strategies are leaders such as Medtronic, Stryker and DePuy Synthes using to maintain share?
How will donor availability constraints affect allograft growth, and where will synthetic products fill the gap?
What are the most important product features surgeons prioritize across synthetic, DBM and allograft options?
This report answers these questions through detailed category-level data, competitive analysis and procedure-based forecasting.
About iData Research
iData Research is a premium market intelligence firm headquartered in Canada with offices across North America and Europe.
Over the last 20 years, the company has specialized in device-level sizing, procedure models, pricing trends, and competitive share across MedTech.
Since 2005, iData has supported global OEMs, mid-market innovators, and investors with triangulated data based on units and ASPs, with country-level forecasts and analyst access across Europe, North America, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and APAC.
Reports are available with flexible licensing to fit commercial, strategy, and investment workflows
Table of Contents
135 Pages
- Research Methodology
- Step 1: Project Initiation & Team Selection
- Step 2: Prepare Data Systems And Perform Secondary Research
- Step 3: Preparation For Interviews & Questionnaire Design
- Step 4: Performing Primary Research
- Step 5: Research Analysis: Establishing Baseline Estimates
- Step 6: Market Forecast And Analysis
- Step 7: Identify Strategic Opportunities
- Step 8: Final Review And Market Release
- Step 9: Customer Feedback And Market Monitoring
- Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market
- 4.1 Executive Summary
- 4.1.1 Global Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market Overview
- 4.1.2 Competitive Analysis
- 4.1.3 Procedure Segmentation
- 4.1.4 Market Segmentation
- 4.1.5 Regions Included
- 4.2 Introduction
- 4.3 Procedure Numbers
- 4.3.1 Total Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures
- 4.3.2 Allograft Procedures
- 4.3.3 Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures
- 4.3.4 Synthetic Procedures
- 4.4 Market Overview
- 4.4.1 By Segment
- 4.4.2 By Region
- 4.5 Market Analysis And Forecast
- 4.5.1 Total Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market
- 4.5.2 Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Market
- 4.5.3 Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Market
- 4.5.4 Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market
- 4.5.4.1 Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market By Generation Type
- 4.6 Unit Analysis
- 4.6.1 Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Unit Analysis
- 4.6.1.1 Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold By Indication
- 4.6.1.1.1 Spine Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold
- 4.6.1.1.2 Trauma Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold
- 4.6.1.1.3 Large Joint Reconstruction Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold
- 4.6.2 Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Unit Analysis
- 4.6.2.1 Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold By Indication
- 4.6.2.1.1 Spine Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold
- 4.6.2.1.2 Trauma Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold
- 4.6.2.1.3 Large Joint Reconstruction Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold
- 4.6.3 Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Unit Analysis
- 4.6.3.1 Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold By Indication
- 4.6.3.1.1 Spine Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold
- 4.6.3.1.2 Trauma Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold
- 4.6.3.1.3 Large Joint Reconstruction Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold
- 4.7 Drivers And Limiters
- 4.7.1 Market Drivers
- 4.7.2 Market Limiters
- 4.8 Competitive Market Share Analysis
- Abbreviations
- Chart 4-1: Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2024 & 2031
- Chart 4-2: Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Procedures, Global, 2024
- Chart 4-3: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Segment, Global, 2021– 2031
- Chart 4-4: Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Device Market by Segment, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Chart 4-5: Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Device Market by Region, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Chart 4-6: Leading Competitors, Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2024
- Figure 4-1: Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Regions Covered, Global (1 of 2)
- Figure 4-2: Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Regions Covered, Global (2 of 2)
- Figure 4-3: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Segment, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-4: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Region, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-5: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Country, North America, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-6: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Country, Latin America, 2021 – 2031 (1 of 2)
- Figure 4-7: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Country, Latin America, 2021 – 2031 (2 of 2)
- Figure 4-8: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Country, Western Europe, 2021– 2031
- Figure 4-9: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Country, Central & Eastern Europe, 2021 – 2031 (1 of 2)
- Figure 4-10: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Country, Central & Eastern Europe, 2021 – 2031 (2 of 2)
- Figure 4-11: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Country, Middle East, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-12: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Country, Asia-Pacific, 2021– 2031 (1 of 3)
- Figure 4-13: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Country, Asia-Pacific, 2021 – 2031 (2 of 3)
- Figure 4-14: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Country, Asia-Pacific, 2021 – 2031 (3 of 3)
- Figure 4-15: Orthopedic Bone Grafting Procedures by Country, Africa, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-16: Allograft Procedures by Region, Global, 2021– 2031
- Figure 4-17: Allograft Procedures by Country, North America, 2021– 2031
- Figure 4-18: Allograft Procedures by Country, Latin America, 2021– 2031 (1 of 2)
- Figure 4-19: Allograft Procedures by Country, Latin America, 2021– 2031 (2 of 2)
- Figure 4-20: Allograft Procedures by Country, Western Europe, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-21: Allograft Procedures by Country, Central & Eastern Europe, 2021 – 2031 (1 of 2)
- Figure 4-22: Allograft Procedures by Country, Central & Eastern Europe, 2021 – 2031 (2 of 2)
- Figure 4-23: Allograft Procedures by Country, Middle East, 2021– 2031
- Figure 4-24: Allograft Procedures by Country, Asia-Pacific, 2021 – 2031 (1 of 3)
- Figure 4-25: Allograft Procedures by Country, Asia-Pacific, 2021 – 2031 (2 of 3)
- Figure 4-26: Allograft Procedures by Country, Asia-Pacific, 2021 – 2031 (3 of 3)
- Figure 4-27: Allograft Procedures by Country, Africa, 2021– 2031
- Figure 4-28: Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures by Region, Global, 2021– 2031
- Figure 4-29: Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures by Country, North America, 2021– 2031
- Figure 4-30: Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures by Country, Latin America, 2021– 2031 (1 of 2)
- Figure 4-31: Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures by Country, Latin America, 2021– 2031 (2 of 2)
- Figure 4-32: Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures by Country, Western Europe, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-33: Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures by Country, Central & Eastern Europe, 2021 – 2031 (1 of 2)
- Figure 4-34: Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures by Country, Central & Eastern Europe, 2021 – 2031 (2 of 2)
- Figure 4-35: Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures by Country, Middle East, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-36: Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures by Country, Asia-Pacific, 2021– 2031 (1 of 3)
- Figure 4-37: Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures by Country, Asia-Pacific, 2021– 2031 (2 of 3)
- Figure 4-38: Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures by Country, Asia-Pacific, 2021 – 2031 (3 of 3)
- Figure 4-39: Demineralized Bone Matrix Procedures by Country, Africa, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-40: Synthetic Procedures by Region, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-41: Synthetic Procedures by Country, North America, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-42: Synthetic Procedures by Country, Latin America, 2021 – 2031 (1 of 2)
- Figure 4-43: Synthetic Procedures by Country, Latin America, 2021 – 2031 (2 of 2)
- Figure 4-44: Synthetic Procedures by Country, Western Europe, 2021– 2031
- Figure 4-45: Synthetic Procedures by Country, Central & Eastern Europe, 2021 – 2031 (1 of 2)
- Figure 4-46: Synthetic Procedures by Country, Central & Eastern Europe, 2021 – 2031 (2 of 2)
- Figure 4-47: Synthetic Procedures by Country, Middle East, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-48: Synthetic Procedures by Country, Asia-Pacific, 2021 – 2031 (1 of 3)
- Figure 4-49: Synthetic Procedures by Country, Asia-Pacific, 2021 – 2031 (2 of 3)
- Figure 4-50: Synthetic Procedures by Country, Asia-Pacific, 2021 – 2031 (3 of 3)
- Figure 4-51: Synthetic Procedures by Country, Africa, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-52: Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Device Market by Segment, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$M)
- Figure 4-53: Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Device Market by Region, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$M)
- Figure 4-54: Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-55: Units Sold by Region, Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-56: Average Selling Price by Region, Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021– 2031 (US$)
- Figure 4-57: Market Value by Region, Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$M)
- Figure 4-58: Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-59: Units Sold by Region, Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-60: Average Selling Price by Region, Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$)
- Figure 4-61: Market Value by Region, Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$M)
- Figure 4-62: Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-63: Units Sold by Region, Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-64: Average Selling Price by Region, Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$)
- Figure 4-65: Market Value by Region, Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$M)
- Figure 4-66: Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-67: Units Sold by Region, Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-68: Average Selling Price by Region, Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$)
- Figure 4-69: Market Value by Region, Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$M)
- Figure 4-70: Generation 1 Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-71: Units Sold by Region, Generation 1 Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-72: Average Selling Price by Region, Generation 1 Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$)
- Figure 4-73: Market Value by Region, Generation 1 Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$M)
- Figure 4-74: Generation 2 Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-75: Units Sold by Region, Generation 2 Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-76: Average Selling Price by Region, Generation 2 Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$)
- Figure 4-77: Market Value by Region, Generation 2 Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2021 – 2031 (US$M)
- Figure 4-78: Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold by Indication, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-79: Spine Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-80: Trauma Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-81: Large Joint Reconstruction Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold, Global, 2021– 2031
- Figure 4-82: Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold by Indication, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-83: Spine Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-84: Trauma Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-85: Large Joint Reconstruction Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-86: Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold by Indication, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-87: Spine Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-88: Trauma Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-89: Large Joint Reconstruction Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Units Sold, Global, 2021 – 2031
- Figure 4-90: Leading Competitors, Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market, Global, 2024
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
