Thin hermetic passivation of semiconductors using low temperature borosilicate glass - benchmark of a new wafer-level packaging technology

Leib, J.; Gyenge, Oliver; Hansen, Ulli; Maus, Simon; Fischer, Thorsten; Zoschke, Kai; Toepper, Michael

doi:10.1109/ectc.2009.5074117

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Historically, implant casings have been metallic ( Chong et al, 2020 ). Borosilicate glass encapsulation is an attractive alternative to metallic enclosures due to its excellent material properties, biocompatibility and recent advancements in micro-machining ( Mund and Leib, 2004 ; Ginggen et al, 2008 ; Hansen et al, 2009 ; Leib et al, 2009 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Safety of Micro-Implants for the Brain

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological advancements in electronics and micromachining now allow the development of discrete wireless brain implantable micro-devices. Applications of such devices include stimulation or sensing and could enable direct placement near regions of interest within the brain without the need for electrode leads or separate battery compartments that are at increased risk of breakage and infection. Clinical use of leadless brain implants is accompanied by novel risks, such as migration of the implant. Additionally, the encapsulation material of the implants plays an important role in mitigating unwanted tissue reactions. These risks have the potential to cause harm or reduce the service of life of the implant. In the present study, we have assessed post-implantation tissue reaction and migration of borosilicate glass-encapsulated micro-implants within the cortex of the brain. Twenty borosilicate glass-encapsulated devices (2 × 3.5 × 20 mm) were implanted into the parenchyma of 10 sheep for 6 months. Radiographs were taken directly post-surgery and at 3 and 6 months. Subsequently, sheep were euthanized, and GFAP and IBA-1 histological analysis was performed. The migration of the implants was tracked by reference to two stainless steel screws placed in the skull. We found no significant difference in fluoroscopy intensity of GFAP and a small difference in IBA-1 between implanted tissue and control. There was no glial scar formation found at the site of the implant’s track wall. Furthermore, we observed movement of up to 4.6 mm in a subset of implants in the first 3 months of implantation and no movement in any implant during the 3–6-month period of implantation. Subsequent histological analysis revealed no evidence of a migration track or tissue damage. We conclude that the implantation of this discrete micro-implant within the brain does not present additional risk due to migration.

show abstract