Characterization of Breast Implant Surfaces, Shapes, and Biomechanics: A Comparison of High Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Textured Silicone, Breast Implants from Three Different Manufacturers
Several companies offer anatomically shaped breast implants but differences among manufacturers are often misunderstood. The shell texture is a crucial parameter for anatomically shaped implants to prevent rotation and to decrease the risk of capsular contracture, even though concerns have recently...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Aesthetic plastic surgery 2016-02, Vol.40 (1), p.89-97 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 97 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 89 |
| container_title | Aesthetic plastic surgery |
| container_volume | 40 |
| creator | Atlan, Michael Bigerelle, Maxence Larreta-garde, Véronique Hindié, Mathilde Hedén, Per |
| description | Several companies offer anatomically shaped breast implants but differences among manufacturers are often misunderstood. The shell texture is a crucial parameter for anatomically shaped implants to prevent rotation and to decrease the risk of capsular contracture, even though concerns have recently been raised concerning the complications associated with textured breast implants. The aim of this study was to characterize differences in terms of texture, cell adhesion, shape, and stiffness between some commonly used anatomically shaped implants from three different manufacturers.
Methods
Five commercially available anatomically shaped breast implants from 3 different manufacturers (Allergan, Mentor, and Sebbin) were used. Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray microtomography, and scanning mechanical microscopy were used to characterize the shell texture. Human fibroblast adhesion onto the shells was evaluated. 3D models of the implants were obtained using CT-scan acquisitions to analyze their shape. Implant stiffness was evaluated using a tractiometer.
Results
Major differences were observed in the topography of the textures of the shells, but this was not conveyed by a statistically significant fibroblast adhesion difference. However, fibroblasts adhered better on anatomically shaped textured implants than on smooth implants (
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00266-015-0603-8 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_02901866v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3949850101</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-3fb9f28ab2715876f5e2dbf4ba30c5f890f7e28ad495954371909d6a96a55ff43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1ks9u1DAQxiMEokvhAbggS1xAasB2Yjvhtl3-bKVFHHaRuFmzybhxlcSpnVSUh-PZcJRSoUqcxpr5zTcz8pckLxl9xyhV7wOlXMqUMpFSSbO0eJSsWJ7xVPCcPU5WNJN5ypn8cZI8C-GKUsaVyp8mJ1yqXBYFXyW_Nw14qEb09heM1vXEGXLuEcJILrqhhX4k-8kbqDCckX0Dwxyhr8m5dR1WDfS2Ch_ImmxcN4C3YZHY2ssmphoM9gbJuofRdbaCtr1dRGpywJ_j5ONjb1tbuR7PHswNxHjXkUPjEclHawx6jNt8hX6K68y9PjxPnhhoA764i6fJ98-fDpttuvv25WKz3qWVYOWYZuZYGl7AkSsmCiWNQF4fTX6EjFbCFCU1CmO9zktRijxTrKRlLaGUIIQxeXaavF10G2j14G0H_lY7sHq73uk5R3lJWSHlDYvsm4UdvLueMIy6s6HCNt6EbgqaKSkYY1LMsq8foFdu8n28ZKZyyVWpRKTYQlXeheDR3G_AqJ6NoBcj6GgEPRtBF7Hn1Z3ydOywvu_4-_MR4AsQYqm_RP_P6P-q_gGlNb9S</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1764627975</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Characterization of Breast Implant Surfaces, Shapes, and Biomechanics: A Comparison of High Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Textured Silicone, Breast Implants from Three Different Manufacturers</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Atlan, Michael ; Bigerelle, Maxence ; Larreta-garde, Véronique ; Hindié, Mathilde ; Hedén, Per</creator><creatorcontrib>Atlan, Michael ; Bigerelle, Maxence ; Larreta-garde, Véronique ; Hindié, Mathilde ; Hedén, Per</creatorcontrib><description>Several companies offer anatomically shaped breast implants but differences among manufacturers are often misunderstood. The shell texture is a crucial parameter for anatomically shaped implants to prevent rotation and to decrease the risk of capsular contracture, even though concerns have recently been raised concerning the complications associated with textured breast implants. The aim of this study was to characterize differences in terms of texture, cell adhesion, shape, and stiffness between some commonly used anatomically shaped implants from three different manufacturers.
Methods
Five commercially available anatomically shaped breast implants from 3 different manufacturers (Allergan, Mentor, and Sebbin) were used. Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray microtomography, and scanning mechanical microscopy were used to characterize the shell texture. Human fibroblast adhesion onto the shells was evaluated. 3D models of the implants were obtained using CT-scan acquisitions to analyze their shape. Implant stiffness was evaluated using a tractiometer.
Results
Major differences were observed in the topography of the textures of the shells, but this was not conveyed by a statistically significant fibroblast adhesion difference. However, fibroblasts adhered better on anatomically shaped textured implants than on smooth implants (
p
< 0.01). Our work pointed out differences in the Biocell
®
texture in comparison with older studies. The 3D analysis showed significant shape differences between the anatomically shaped implants of the 3 companies, despite similar dimensions. Implant stiffness was comparable among the 3 brands.
Conclusions
Each texture had its specific topography, and this work is the first description of Sebbin anatomic breast implant texturation. Moreover, major discrepancies were found in the analysis of the Biocell
®
texture when comparing our results with previous reports. These differences may have clinical implications and are discussed. This study also highlighted major shape differences among breast implants from different manufacturers, which is quite counterintuitive. The clinical impact of these differences however needs further investigation.
No Level Assigned
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors
www.springer.com/00266
.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0364-216X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-5241</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00266-015-0603-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26746882</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena ; Breast Implants ; Life Sciences ; Materials Testing ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Original Article ; Otorhinolaryngology ; Plastic Surgery ; Prosthesis Design ; Silicone Gels</subject><ispartof>Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2016-02, Vol.40 (1), p.89-97</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2016</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-3fb9f28ab2715876f5e2dbf4ba30c5f890f7e28ad495954371909d6a96a55ff43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-3fb9f28ab2715876f5e2dbf4ba30c5f890f7e28ad495954371909d6a96a55ff43</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4144-245X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00266-015-0603-8$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00266-015-0603-8$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26746882$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-02901866$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Atlan, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bigerelle, Maxence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larreta-garde, Véronique</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hindié, Mathilde</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hedén, Per</creatorcontrib><title>Characterization of Breast Implant Surfaces, Shapes, and Biomechanics: A Comparison of High Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Textured Silicone, Breast Implants from Three Different Manufacturers</title><title>Aesthetic plastic surgery</title><addtitle>Aesth Plast Surg</addtitle><addtitle>Aesthetic Plast Surg</addtitle><description>Several companies offer anatomically shaped breast implants but differences among manufacturers are often misunderstood. The shell texture is a crucial parameter for anatomically shaped implants to prevent rotation and to decrease the risk of capsular contracture, even though concerns have recently been raised concerning the complications associated with textured breast implants. The aim of this study was to characterize differences in terms of texture, cell adhesion, shape, and stiffness between some commonly used anatomically shaped implants from three different manufacturers.
Methods
Five commercially available anatomically shaped breast implants from 3 different manufacturers (Allergan, Mentor, and Sebbin) were used. Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray microtomography, and scanning mechanical microscopy were used to characterize the shell texture. Human fibroblast adhesion onto the shells was evaluated. 3D models of the implants were obtained using CT-scan acquisitions to analyze their shape. Implant stiffness was evaluated using a tractiometer.
Results
Major differences were observed in the topography of the textures of the shells, but this was not conveyed by a statistically significant fibroblast adhesion difference. However, fibroblasts adhered better on anatomically shaped textured implants than on smooth implants (
p
< 0.01). Our work pointed out differences in the Biocell
®
texture in comparison with older studies. The 3D analysis showed significant shape differences between the anatomically shaped implants of the 3 companies, despite similar dimensions. Implant stiffness was comparable among the 3 brands.
Conclusions
Each texture had its specific topography, and this work is the first description of Sebbin anatomic breast implant texturation. Moreover, major discrepancies were found in the analysis of the Biocell
®
texture when comparing our results with previous reports. These differences may have clinical implications and are discussed. This study also highlighted major shape differences among breast implants from different manufacturers, which is quite counterintuitive. The clinical impact of these differences however needs further investigation.
No Level Assigned
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors
www.springer.com/00266
.</description><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Breast Implants</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology</subject><subject>Plastic Surgery</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Silicone Gels</subject><issn>0364-216X</issn><issn>1432-5241</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp1ks9u1DAQxiMEokvhAbggS1xAasB2Yjvhtl3-bKVFHHaRuFmzybhxlcSpnVSUh-PZcJRSoUqcxpr5zTcz8pckLxl9xyhV7wOlXMqUMpFSSbO0eJSsWJ7xVPCcPU5WNJN5ypn8cZI8C-GKUsaVyp8mJ1yqXBYFXyW_Nw14qEb09heM1vXEGXLuEcJILrqhhX4k-8kbqDCckX0Dwxyhr8m5dR1WDfS2Ch_ImmxcN4C3YZHY2ssmphoM9gbJuofRdbaCtr1dRGpywJ_j5ONjb1tbuR7PHswNxHjXkUPjEclHawx6jNt8hX6K68y9PjxPnhhoA764i6fJ98-fDpttuvv25WKz3qWVYOWYZuZYGl7AkSsmCiWNQF4fTX6EjFbCFCU1CmO9zktRijxTrKRlLaGUIIQxeXaavF10G2j14G0H_lY7sHq73uk5R3lJWSHlDYvsm4UdvLueMIy6s6HCNt6EbgqaKSkYY1LMsq8foFdu8n28ZKZyyVWpRKTYQlXeheDR3G_AqJ6NoBcj6GgEPRtBF7Hn1Z3ydOywvu_4-_MR4AsQYqm_RP_P6P-q_gGlNb9S</recordid><startdate>20160201</startdate><enddate>20160201</enddate><creator>Atlan, Michael</creator><creator>Bigerelle, Maxence</creator><creator>Larreta-garde, Véronique</creator><creator>Hindié, Mathilde</creator><creator>Hedén, Per</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>Springer Verlag</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4144-245X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20160201</creationdate><title>Characterization of Breast Implant Surfaces, Shapes, and Biomechanics: A Comparison of High Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Textured Silicone, Breast Implants from Three Different Manufacturers</title><author>Atlan, Michael ; Bigerelle, Maxence ; Larreta-garde, Véronique ; Hindié, Mathilde ; Hedén, Per</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-3fb9f28ab2715876f5e2dbf4ba30c5f890f7e28ad495954371909d6a96a55ff43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Breast Implants</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology</topic><topic>Plastic Surgery</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Silicone Gels</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Atlan, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bigerelle, Maxence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larreta-garde, Véronique</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hindié, Mathilde</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hedén, Per</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>Aesthetic plastic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Atlan, Michael</au><au>Bigerelle, Maxence</au><au>Larreta-garde, Véronique</au><au>Hindié, Mathilde</au><au>Hedén, Per</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Characterization of Breast Implant Surfaces, Shapes, and Biomechanics: A Comparison of High Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Textured Silicone, Breast Implants from Three Different Manufacturers</atitle><jtitle>Aesthetic plastic surgery</jtitle><stitle>Aesth Plast Surg</stitle><addtitle>Aesthetic Plast Surg</addtitle><date>2016-02-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>89</spage><epage>97</epage><pages>89-97</pages><issn>0364-216X</issn><eissn>1432-5241</eissn><abstract>Several companies offer anatomically shaped breast implants but differences among manufacturers are often misunderstood. The shell texture is a crucial parameter for anatomically shaped implants to prevent rotation and to decrease the risk of capsular contracture, even though concerns have recently been raised concerning the complications associated with textured breast implants. The aim of this study was to characterize differences in terms of texture, cell adhesion, shape, and stiffness between some commonly used anatomically shaped implants from three different manufacturers.
Methods
Five commercially available anatomically shaped breast implants from 3 different manufacturers (Allergan, Mentor, and Sebbin) were used. Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray microtomography, and scanning mechanical microscopy were used to characterize the shell texture. Human fibroblast adhesion onto the shells was evaluated. 3D models of the implants were obtained using CT-scan acquisitions to analyze their shape. Implant stiffness was evaluated using a tractiometer.
Results
Major differences were observed in the topography of the textures of the shells, but this was not conveyed by a statistically significant fibroblast adhesion difference. However, fibroblasts adhered better on anatomically shaped textured implants than on smooth implants (
p
< 0.01). Our work pointed out differences in the Biocell
®
texture in comparison with older studies. The 3D analysis showed significant shape differences between the anatomically shaped implants of the 3 companies, despite similar dimensions. Implant stiffness was comparable among the 3 brands.
Conclusions
Each texture had its specific topography, and this work is the first description of Sebbin anatomic breast implant texturation. Moreover, major discrepancies were found in the analysis of the Biocell
®
texture when comparing our results with previous reports. These differences may have clinical implications and are discussed. This study also highlighted major shape differences among breast implants from different manufacturers, which is quite counterintuitive. The clinical impact of these differences however needs further investigation.
No Level Assigned
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors
www.springer.com/00266
.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>26746882</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00266-015-0603-8</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4144-245X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0364-216X |
| ispartof | Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2016-02, Vol.40 (1), p.89-97 |
| issn | 0364-216X 1432-5241 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_02901866v1 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Biomechanical Phenomena Breast Implants Life Sciences Materials Testing Medicine Medicine & Public Health Original Article Otorhinolaryngology Plastic Surgery Prosthesis Design Silicone Gels |
| title | Characterization of Breast Implant Surfaces, Shapes, and Biomechanics: A Comparison of High Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Textured Silicone, Breast Implants from Three Different Manufacturers |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T19%3A50%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Characterization%20of%20Breast%20Implant%20Surfaces,%20Shapes,%20and%20Biomechanics:%20A%20Comparison%20of%20High%20Cohesive%20Anatomically%20Shaped%20Textured%20Silicone,%20Breast%20Implants%20from%20Three%20Different%20Manufacturers&rft.jtitle=Aesthetic%20plastic%20surgery&rft.au=Atlan,%20Michael&rft.date=2016-02-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=89&rft.epage=97&rft.pages=89-97&rft.issn=0364-216X&rft.eissn=1432-5241&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00266-015-0603-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E3949850101%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1764627975&rft_id=info:pmid/26746882&rfr_iscdi=true |