The Science of Modern Breast Implants: A Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison of Silicone Breast Devices

Clicks: 31
ID: 327640
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #38 of 129 articles by views in Aesthetic surgery journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 129 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Breast implants remain the cornerstone of aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery, yet surgeon device selection is frequently driven by manufacturer marketing, social media, and brand loyalty rather than objective scientific data. Objectives To provide a comprehensive, side-by-side qualitative and quantitative comparison of current-generation silicone gel breast implants from the four major United States manufacturers, characterizing each device's gel, shell, and gel–shell interface properties. Methods Two unopened, current-generation implants were obtained from each of Allergan (Inspira Responsive, Inspira SoftTouch), Mentor (MemoryGel BOOST, MemoryGel Xtra), Motiva (Ergonomix, Round), and Sientra (106/HSC, 107/HSC+). Eight assessment methods were applied: still-photo tilt-table analysis, time-in-motion video analysis, gel–shell pinch-roll testing, BTC 2000 biomechanical gel evaluation, tensiometer gel–shell peel testing, in vivo high-resolution ultrasound imaging, blinded patient tactile assessment, and matrix usability scoring. Results Mentor MemoryGel BOOST demonstrated the most form-stable gel across all five BTC 2000 parameters, the longest pinch-roll endpoint, and the longest tensiometer peel time with significant retained gel, indicating the strongest gel–shell interaction. Despite this form stability, BOOST was the third-highest-rated implant on blinded patient tactile assessment, with MemoryGel Xtra ranked first. Sientra 106 was consistently the least form-stable. Allergan implants demonstrated the highest ultrasound shell visualization clarity. Allergan also achieved the highest matrix usability score, reflecting broad profile diversity across aesthetic and reconstructive applications. Conclusions Current silicone gel breast implants demonstrate measurable, manufacturer-specific differences in gel behavior, shell properties, gel–shell interaction, sonographic appearance, and clinical applicability. These findings support a paradigm shift toward science-driven implant selection and provide objective data to guide surgeon decision-making.
Reference Key
openalex_W7208755697 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Khaled O. Alameddine, Shikhar Tomur, William P Adams
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Aesthetic surgery journal
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/asj/sjag185
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjag185
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.