Scientific Reports (Aug 2022)

Impact on capsule formation for three different types of implant surface tomography

  • Hyeon Jun Jeon,
  • MyeongJae Kang,
  • Joon Seok Lee,
  • Jieun Kang,
  • Eun A. Kim,
  • Hee Kyung Jin,
  • Jae-sung Bae,
  • Jung Dug Yang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17320-x
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Although capsular contracture remains one of the major problems following silicone breast implantation, the associated mechanism has yet to be determined. This study thus aimed to investigate capsule formation and capsular contracture using three types of implants with different surface topographies in vivo. Three types of implants (i.e., smooth, macrotexture, and nanotexture) with different surface topographies were inserted in a total of 48 Wistar rats. After 4 and 12 weeks, the samples were analyzed via histological, immunohistochemical, and Western blot examination. To identify implant movement, the degree to which implant position changed was measured. And the surface topography was characterized using scanning electron microscopy. Hematoxylin–eosin staining showed that the nanotexture type implant promoted significant decreases in capsule thickness at 12 weeks (P < 0.05), while Masson trichrome staining showed decreased collagen fiber density with the same implant type. Immunohistochemical and Western blot examination revealed reduced fibrosis markers (myofibroblast, and transforming growth factor beta-1) in the nanotexture surface implant. Meanwhile, implant location evaluation found that the nanotexture and smooth surface implants had significantly increased movement (P < 0.05). The nanotexture surface implant had been found to reduce capsule formation given that it minimizes the effects of factors related to foreign body reaction.