A comparative experimental study of silicone gel and bioplastique


Bioplastique, a biphasic polymer of textured dimetylpolysiloxane is reported to be useful in filling small soft tissue defects. The microparticles range in size from 100 to 600 p and are suspended in a hydrogel carier from the family of the plasdones. The bioexcretable gel component is rapidly phagocytized and replaced by fibrin-like matrix with in a few days. In this study it is aimed to observe the local and systemic effects of Bioplastique and gel silicone in comparison. Our study in rabbit ears has shown that Bioplastique caused severe foreign body reaction in injection site and showed no migration to lymph nodes. On the other hand, silicone gel caused fibrous encapsulation and showed migration to lymph nodes, and formation of granulomatous reaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Allison AC, Harington JS, Birbeck M (1966) An examination of the cytotoxic effects of silica on macrophages. J Exp Med 124:141

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Beisang AA, Ersek RA (1992) Mammalian response to subdermal implantation of textured microimplants. Aesth Plast Surg 16:83–90

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Boros DL (1978) Granulomatous inflammation. Prog Allergy 24:183–267

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Boskovic DM (1993) Use of tissue expanders in reconstruction after excision of multiple large silicone granulomas (Letter). Ann Plast Surg 31:379

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Brantley SK et al (1990) Assessment of the lymphocyte response to silicone. Plast Reconstr Surg 86:1131–1137

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Christie AJ, Weinberger KA, Dietrich M (1977) Silicone lymphadenopathy and synovitis. JAMA 237:1463–1464

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ersek RA, Beisang AA (1992) Bioplastique: a new biphasic polymer for minimally invasive injection implantation. Aesth Plast Surg 16:59–65

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Ersek RA, Beisang AA (1991) Bioplastique: a new textured copolymer microparticle promises permanence in soft tissue augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 87:693–702

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Habal MB (1984) The biologic basis for the clinical application of the silicones. Arch Surg 119:843–848

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Heggers JP, Kossovsky N, Parsons RW et al (1983) Biocompatibility of silicone implants. Ann Plast Surg 11:38

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Jackson IT, de Fontain S, Tanner BNS (1994) Removal of bioplastique after nasal augmentation. Eur J Plast Surg 17:154–156

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kubota J, Fujino T, Sugimoto C, Abe T (1984) Long term complications caused by injected silicone gel and paraffin oil. Keio J Med 33:127–136

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mitnick JS et al (1993) Fine needle aspiration biopsy in patients with augmentation prostheses and a palpable mass. Ann Plast Surg 31:241–244

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mladick RA (1992) Twelve months of experience with bioplastique. Aesth Plast Surg 16:69–76

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Rees TD, Ballatyne DL, Seidman I, Hawthorne GA (1967) Visceral response to subcutaneous and intraperitoneal injections of silicone in mice. Plast Reconstr Surg 39:402

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sergott TJ, Limoli JP, Baldwin CM, Laub DR (1986) Human adjuvant disease, possible autoimmune disease after silicone implantation: a review of the literature, case studies, and speculation for the future. Plast Reconstr Surg 78:104–114

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Simons G, Mazaleyrat P, Masurel T (1992) Utilization of injectable microimplants in aesthetic facial surgery. Aesth Plast Surg 16:77–82

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Spira M, Rosen T (1993) Injectable soft tissue substitutes. Clin Plast Surg 20:181–188

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Travis WD, Balogh MD, Abraham JL (1985) Silicone granolomas: report of three cases and review of the literature. Hum Pathol 16:19–27

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wickham MG, Rudolph R, Abraham JL (1978) Silicone identification in prosthesis-associated fibrous capsules. Science 199:437

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Deveci.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Deveci, M., Selmanpakoglu, N. & Kömürcü, E. A comparative experimental study of silicone gel and bioplastique. Eur J Plast Surg 19, 139–143 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00185760

Download citation

Key words

  • Silicone
  • Bioplastique
  • Injectable material
  • Foreign body reaction