New filling materials are constantly under investigation. It is very interesting that people often point to "natural" materials as being better or safer. Never forget that most of our most potent drugs / medicines are almost pure derivatives of "natural" flowers, plants and herbs!

Years ago, the rage was an implant called the "Meme". This had a polyurethane sponge covering, intended to reduce capsular contracture. (See the implant page for an explanation.) It was discovered that the polyurethane broke down over a few years and one of the components was linked to cancer in animals. These imnplants were discontinued.

While there are still people that disagree, at the present time the vast majority of data indicates that  breast implants are not likely to have a significant effect on the incidence of cancer or autoimmune disease. (See the "Breast Implants - Information Update" July 1997 available through the FDA.)

There is  no long term safety experience on the effect of alternative fillers such as peanut oil, soybean oil or hydrogel and soy implants were recently removed from the European market.

One of the biggest claims of those who favor these fillers is that mammography may be easier. At least two studies have shown that the cancer death rate of those patients that have breast implants is no higher than those without. Is the mammography claim a solution to a non-existent problem?

My feeling is that jumping on the proverbial bandwagon to try these new materials may not be a great idea!