Comparison of experimental porous silicone implants and porous silicone implants

Son, Junhyuk; Kim, Chang Sik; Yang, Jong In

doi:10.1007/s00417-011-1902-7

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The connecting channels allowed the ingrown tissues to extend to adjacent cavities (Figure 8), and they also ensure oxygen exchange and nutrients supply of cells and neo‐tissues within the scaffolds. Previous long‐term clinic observation showed that coralline hydroxyaptite (HA) implant, with porosity of over 80%, displayed the most rapid vascularization, second, the synthetic HA (with a porosity of 50–65%), third, the Medpor (with porosity of about 41%) implants, 1,30‐32 and the last, the porous silicone implant 13 . In addition to the surface chemistry, porosity was probably another critical factor in inducing vascularization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The four rectus muscles were detached from their insertions with 6–0 traction sutures. After severing the optic nerve, the eyeball was extracted and meticulous hemostasis was performed 13 . A 15 mm diameter porous silicone sphere was placed into the empty socket, and the remaining rectus muscles stumps were attached to the implant slightly anterior to their normal insertion sites.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Non‐porous silicone orbital implants have been prevalently used with low complication rate 10,11 . However, inability to be integrated had been a major limitation 12 until Son et al introduced complete pores through the silicone implant by thermal polymerization of silicone composed of PDMS, poly(dimethylsiloxane) oil, and siloxane vulcanizer 13 . Later investigation in animal model confirmed the capacity for fibrovascular in growth into the porous silicone implants, though relatively slower than Medpor implants at fourth week.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Facile fabrication of elastic, macro‐porous, and fast vascularized silicone orbital implant

Cao

Feng

et al. 2020

J Biomed Mater Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orbital implants with interconnected porous architecture had gained prominence, as they were capable of being colonized by fibrovascular tissue and minimizing complications. However, mechanical properties of orbital implant had received little attention among existing design philosophy. Herein, a compliant porous silicone scaffold was developed by gelatin porogen‐leaching method and used as the orbital implant in this study. The silicone scaffolds exhibited desired microstructure and simulated mechanical properties, including high porosity of ~90%, suitable pore size of 280–450 μm, reduced modulus of 50.1 ± 11.7 KPa, and excellent elasticity. in vitro results showed that the porous silicone scaffolds did not exhibit noticeable cytotoxicity and were favorable for both adhesion and proliferation of human vascular ECs. The porous silicone scaffold was easy to be manipulated when implanted into the anophthalmic sockets of rabbits. The implanted scaffolds provided satisfactory volume replacement and induced extensive fibro‐vascularization, showing desirable orbital reconstruction effects. Therefore, our novel porous silicone scaffolds may be promising substitutes for current orbital implants.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Facile fabrication of elastic, macro‐porous, and fast vascularized silicone orbital implant

Cao

Feng

et al. 2020

J Biomed Mater Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fibrovascular ingrowth into porous implants offers the potential for excellent prosthesis movement, and also reduces a chance of infection, exposure, and displacement, porous polyethylene, silicon, aluminum oxide have been used. Silicone is a material being used in medical science for variety of prosthetic applications, because of its excellent biocompatibility and low cost, some limitations of silicone are limited ingrowth but it can be improve with the introduction of functional groups or nanoparticles in its surface [13].…”

Section: Porous Materials On Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micro, Meso and Macro Porous Materials on Medicine

Solano-Umaña¹,

Vega-Baudrit²

2015

JBNB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An enormous development is experimented on the porous materials. The porous was considered a defect on solid materials some years ago, but right now, this defect is an advantage, based on the properties obtained from a micro and mesoporous materials. Microporous, mesoporous and macroporous materials with an uniformed pore distribution offer new properties, such as absorption, adsorption, exchange separation, and catalysis of different compounds, also they can play different roles as hosts for a nanocomposite materials to modify or improve their properties. Today, the structural types of open framework porous compounds have rapidly increased by their unique structural properties, porous size window and accessible void space are critical factors on a medical application.

show abstract

“…Studies on silicone implants to restore volume in an anophthalmic socket are rare. 1,2 However, cohesive silicone implants are widely used for cosmetic breast augmentation surgery. 3 Controversy remains on whether to use textured or polyurethane-coated silicone implants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cohesive silicone gel implants with smooth, textured or polyurethane-coated surface to restore volume in eviscerated sockets

Abreu

Yamashita

Galindo‐Ferreiro

et al. 2017

Orbit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the three different surface coating on cohesive silicone gel implants in eviscerated rabbit eye sockets. Forty-five albino rabbits underwent right eye evisceration and received hemisphere-shaped cohesive silicone gel implants with smooth (Group 1), textured (Group 2), or polyurethane-coated surface (Group 3) in the socket. The animals were euthanized at 7, 30, and 90 days postoperatively. Computed tomography of the orbits was performed prior to euthanasia. Subsequently, the orbital contents were removed and underwent histologic and morphometric examination. Data were statistically analyzed. There were no adverse effects throughout the study. The majority of implants in the Group 1 exhibited 180° rotation. The Group 3 experienced an intense inflammatory reaction around the implant and implant deformation probably due to pseudocapsule contraction. Cohesive silicone gel implants had good integration into the scleral socket. Optimal results were obtained with cohesive silicone gel textured implants (Group 2). Smooth implants (Group 1) rotated significantly, whereas polyurethane (Group 3) coated implants precipitated an intense inflammatory reaction and were deformed postoperatively.

show abstract

Comparison of experimental porous silicone implants and porous silicone implants

Abstract: Porous silicone orbital implants demonstrated a comparable extent of fibrovascular ingrowth to that for porous polyethylene implants. Therefore, this new porous silicone sphere implant may be a good candidate to substitute for current porous implants at a lower cost.

Cited by 14 publications

References 18 publications

Facile fabrication of elastic, macro‐porous, and fast vascularized silicone orbital implant

Facile fabrication of elastic, macro‐porous, and fast vascularized silicone orbital implant

Micro, Meso and Macro Porous Materials on Medicine

Cohesive silicone gel implants with smooth, textured or polyurethane-coated surface to restore volume in eviscerated sockets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About