Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41463604›Full record

ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Advances in Silicone Implants Characterization: A Comprehensive Overview of Chemical, Physical and Biological Methods for Biocompatibility Assessment.

Kevin Dzobo, Nonhlanhla Khumalo, Vanessa Zamora Mora, Audry Zoncsich, Roberto de Mezerville, Ardeshir Bayat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kevin DzoboMedical Research Council-SA Wound Healing Unit, Hair and Skin Research Laboratory, Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory, Cape Town 7925, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-1334-4665
Nonhlanhla KhumaloMedical Research Council-SA Wound Healing Unit, Hair and Skin Research Laboratory, Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory, Cape Town 7925, South Africa.
Vanessa Zamora MoraEstablishment Labs Holdings, Alajuela 20113, Costa Rica.
Audry ZoncsichEstablishment Labs Holdings, Alajuela 20113, Costa Rica.
Roberto de MezervilleEstablishment Labs Holdings, Alajuela 20113, Costa Rica.
Ardeshir BayatMedical Research Council-SA Wound Healing Unit, Hair and Skin Research Laboratory, Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory, Cape Town 7925, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-4116-6491

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Silicone implants are widely used in medical applications, particularly for breast augmentation and reconstruction. However, ongoing concerns regarding their long-term safety and biocompatibility necessitate comprehensive characterization. This review critically evaluates the chemical, physical, and biological testing approaches currently used to assess silicone implants, and specifically silicone breast implants, biocompatibility, and highlights the limitations of existing ISO 10993-based protocols, which often apply a one-size-fits-all model. We propose an application-specific framework to improve the relevance and precision of biocompatibility assessments. Chemical analyses, including Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, provide essential information on polymer structure, integrity, and composition, thereby supporting quality control and market surveillance. Physical characterization methods, such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), and contact angle measurements, assess the surface morphology, hydrophobicity, and potential defects that may influence the host response. Mechanical testing, which evaluates properties such as tensile strength and fatigue resistance, simulates in vivo stress conditions to predict the long-term durability. Biological evaluations guided by ISO 10993 use in vitro and in vivo models to assess cytotoxicity, adhesion, inflammation, and tissue integration. However, these are often not tailored to the implant type, surface features, or duration of exposure. Emerging tools, such as organ-on-a-chip platforms and machine learning models, offer new possibilities for predictive and context-specific evaluation. We advocate a standardized, modular strategy that integrates chemical, physical, and biological testing with clinical data to bridge preclinical assessments and real-world outcomes, with a specific focus on silicone breast implants. The aim of this approach is to improve patient safety, regulatory clarity, and device innovation across the global landscape of silicone implant development.

Indexed as

analytical techniquesbiocompatibilitycharacterizationclinical outcomesemerging technologiesin vitro assaysregulatory standardssilicone implantssurface modifications

Identifiers

PMID41463604
PMCPMC12729539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.