Editing Breast augmentation (section)

====Second generation====
In the 1970s, manufacturers offered the second generation of breast implant prostheses
* The first developments were a thinner-gauge implant shell, and a filler gel of low-cohesion silicone, which made the devices more functional and realistic (size, appearance, and [[consistency]]). Yet, in clinical practice, second-generation breast implants proved fragile, with greater rates of shell rupture and filler leakage ("silicone-gel bleed") through the "intact device's shell. The consequences, plus increased rates of [[capsular contracture]], precipitated faulty product [[Class action|class action-lawsuits]] by the U.S. government against the Dow Corning Corporation and other manufacturers of breast prostheses.
* The second technological development was a [[polyurethane|polyurethane foam coating]] for the shell of the implant; the coating reduced the degree of capsular contracture by causing an [[Inflammation|inflammatory reaction]] that impeded the formation of a capsule of fibrous [[collagen]] tissue around the coated device. Nevertheless, despite the intentions behind the polyurethane foam coating, the medical use of polyurethane-coated breast implants was briefly discontinued due to the potential health risk posed by 2,4-toluene diamine (TDA), a [[carcinogen]]ic by-product of the chemical breakdown of the polyurethane foam coating of the breast implant.<ref name="Luu11998">{{cite journal |vauthors=Luu HM, Hutter JC, Bushar HF | title=A Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model for 2,4-toluenediamine Leached from Polyurethane foam-covered Breast Implants | journal=Environ Health Perspect | year=1998 | pages=393–400 | volume=106 | issue=7 | pmid=9637796 | doi=10.2307/3434066 | pmc=1533137 | jstor=3434066}}</ref>{{pb}} After reviewing the medical data, the FDA concluded that TDA-induced [[breast cancer]] was an infinitesimal health risk to anyone with breast implants, and did not justify legally requiring physicians to explain the matter to their patients. Ultimately, polyurethane-coated breast implants remain in plastic surgery practice in Europe and in South America; no manufacturer has sought FDA approval for medical sales of such breast implants in the U.S.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Hester TR Jr |author2=Tebbetts JB |author3=Maxwell GP | title=The Polyurethane-covered Mammary Prosthesis: Facts and Fiction (II): A Look Back and a "peek" Ahead | journal=Clinical Plastic Surgery | year=2001 | pages=579–86 | volume=28 | issue=3 |doi=10.1016/S0094-1298(20)32397-X | pmid=11471963}}</ref>
* The third technological development was the double-lumen breast implant, a double-cavity prosthesis composed of a silicone breast implant contained within a saline breast implant. The two-fold, technical goal was: (i) the cosmetic benefits of silicone gel (the inner lumen) enclosed in saline solution (the outer lumen); and (ii) a breast implant whose volume is post-operatively adjustable. Unfortunately, the more complex design of the double-lumen breast implant had a device-failure rate greater than that of single-lumen breast implants. This style of implant, in modern times, is primarily used for [[Reconstructive surgery|breast reconstruction]].<ref>{{Cite journal |date=March 2022 |title=History of breast implants: Back to the future |journal=JPRAS Open |pmid=35434240 |pmc=9006741 |last1=Di Pompeo |first1=F. S. |last2=Paolini |first2=G. |last3=Firmani |first3=G. |last4=Sorotos |first4=M. |volume=32 |pages=166–177 |doi=10.1016/j.jpra.2022.02.004 }}</ref>