Tissue engineering is a relatively new branch of medicine which has been enthusiastically announced as a new tool in reconstructive surgery. Eight years ago it was being compared to genetic engineering, as an extremely promising area in medical treatment¹. Bone reconstruction was indicated as potentially one of the first major application of tissue engineering, as published in Science in 2000². In the last two volumes of Tissue Engineering however, two reviews have been published in which the current contribution of tissue engineering to healthcare is critically discussed^{3, 4}. According to the published data, only 4 TEPs (tissue engineering products) have been approved by FDA until now and the progress in clinical application of TEPs is below expectations. There are several reasons for this, but one of them suggested resolution - coming back to the basic science in tissue engineering research. One of the critical points is the ability of effective cell and tissue culture in vitro on scaffolds made from biomaterials of a controlled behavior at the preimplantation stage and after implantation. In the present analysis the potential sources and maintaining of cells which can be used in the reconstruction of the skeletal system are being discussed as well as the key expectations toward biomaterials which are the basis for effective scaffolds for cell and tissue transplantation.

This work was supported by the State Committee for Scientific Research (grant 05/PBZ-KBN-082/2002/06).

1. M. McCarthy, Bio-engineered Tissues Move Towards the Clinic., The Lancet, 348(9025), 1996, 466;
2. R. F. Service, Tissue engineers build new bone, Science 289, 2000, 1421-1640;
3. T. Hardingham, Regional Perspectives on Tissue Engineering, View from a Small Isand, Tissue Engineering 9, 2003, 1063-1064;
4. M. J. Lysaght, A. L. Hazlehurst, Tissue Engineering: the End of the Beginning, Tissue Engineering 10, 2003, 309-320.

• Legal notice:
  

  Copyright (c) Pielaszek Research, all rights reserved.
  The above materials, including auxiliary resources, are subject to Publisher's copyright and the Author(s) intellectual rights. Without limiting Author(s) rights under respective Copyright Transfer Agreement, no part of the above documents may be reproduced without the express written permission of Pielaszek Research, the Publisher. Express permission from the Author(s) is required to use the above materials for academic purposes, such as lectures or scientific presentations.
  In every case, proper references including Author(s) name(s) and URL of this webpage: https://science24.com/paper/1938 must be provided.

1. Synthesis of highly biocompatible hydroxyapatite nanopowders
2. Polyurethane-based material with calcite and aragonite for tissue engineering composite scaffolds
3.  A  degradable and highly porous polyurethane scaffolds for bone tissue engineering
4. A bit of physics in our understanding of the cell and tissue interaction with scaffolds
5. Culture of osteoblasts on nanostructured titanium – preliminary observation
6. Bone tissue engineered product based on human bone derived cells and polyurethane scaffold
7. Calcite-based material for tissue engineering ceramic scaffolds
8. Optimization of polyurethane structure as the potential materials for bone tissue engineering applications
9. Nanomechanical measurements of thin dextran layers
10. Porous polymeric scaffolds for bone regeneration
11. Effect of diisocyanate chemical structure on biocompatibility of segmented polyurethanes
12. Poly(epsilon-caprolactone)- and poly(methyl methacrylate)-based scaffolds in human bone-derived cell cultures in vitro
13. Mechanical characteristics of polymeric support as an important factor in osteoblast culture in vitro
14. Alginate hydrogel-candidate support for cell transplantation - preliminary observation in human chondrocyte culture
15. Omentum major as potential source of osteogenic cells for tissue engineering (preliminary report)
16. Differentiation of cells from adipose tissue into osteoblasts in the presence of biomaterials in vitro (preliminary report)
17. Alternative methods bring a new input in biocompatibility testing