Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2026
3D Planning and Printing of Patient Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Bony Defects
Published on: August 4, 2020
A comparison of naturally shaped and round implants
Background:
The relative merits of round versus naturally shaped breast implants continue to be a subject of debate.
Objective:
The results of augmentations with McGhan Style 110 round textured noncohesive-gel-filled implants were compared with those using McGhan Style 410 FM naturally shaped, textured cohesive-gel-filled implants in 2 similar groups of patients.
Methods:
Patients in each implant group ranged from 23 to 60 years of age; the average of each group was similar. To ensure continuity of follow-up, only patients from southern Switzerland were chosen for the study. The average implant size in the Style 110 group was 216 cc; the average implant size in the Style 410 group was 232.8 g. All implants were placed in the subglandular position, in front of the muscle. Patients were monitored after operation for a minimum of 4 years. Results were documented photographically from 1 year to a minimum of 4 years after operation.
Results:
In the Style 410 group, 49 of 50 breasts were normal Baker I, 5 years after operation; 1 breast had become hard without deformation (Baker II). In the Style 110 group, all breasts were normal Baker I, 5 years after operation. On photographic evaluation, it was nearly impossible to distinguish between the 2 types of implants.
Conclusion:
Excellent results can be achieved with either type of implant. With appropriate placement, the Style 410 matrix can provide the patient who so desires additional options with respect to medial fullness, lateral protrusion, and upper pole filling. (Aesthetic Surg J 2002;22:238-246.).
