ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Cytotoxicity, Inflammatory Activity, and Angiogenesis Are Induced by Different Silicone Implants.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Silicone Implants Characterization: A Comprehensive Overview of Chemical, Physical and Biological Methods for Biocompatibility Assessment.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Platform for Testing the Biocompatibility of Implants: Silicone Induces a Proinflammatory Response in a 3D Skin Equivalent.Biomedicines · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe aim of this study was to investigate cytotoxicity, inflammatory response, and angiogenesis induced by silicone gel breast implants with different textured surfaces in vitro and in vivo. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn the in vitro study, murine fibroblast cells (L929) were cultured for 1, 3, and 5 days with silicone membranes of three different textures: nanotextured, microtextured, and silicone foam. In the in vivo study, a total of 30 male rats (Rattus, norvegicus, albinos, Wistar) were distributed into three groups (10 animals per group), with 2 implants in each rat: nanotextured silicone gel breast implants group, microtextured silicone gel breast implants group, and silicone gel breast foam implants group.
resultsThe Alamar Blue assay detected higher viability of cells cultured in the presence of nanotextured silicone surface for 1 and 3 days. The MTT assay showed higher cytotoxicity of silicone foam after 1 and 3 days of exposure. Nanotextured silicone breast implants induced a more prolonged inflammatory response, denoting a delay in the healing process and subsequent organization of the fibrous capsule as depicted by the collagen fiber types found. VEGF expression did not differ between experimental groups.
conclusionGel foam breast implants are more biocompatible when compared to micro- or nano-textured silicone breast implants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.