Now, there is also the of a capsular contracture. A capsular contracture simply means that when you put an implant in a human body, your immune system or your body will recognize the implant as foreign. This is one of the main reasons the implant envelope is made from silicone and no other materials like rubber, plastic, etc. because silicone is the most medically inert substance known to man. Silicone is the least offensive material to your immune system, so your immune system is likely to detect it and say OK yes this is something foreign, but it’s not aggressive so it’s not any threat to us. Therefore, what your body will do is form a capsule around the implant, and that’s the end of the immune response.
The procedure is accomplished by using the skin of the lower pole of the breast (the part below the nipple that sits in the bra cup) to shape the whole breast into a perky dome, then straps are made of the extra skin, anchoring it to the underlying chest muscle so that there is virtually no chance of repeat sagging.  The skin that above your nipple and below your collar bone is utilized to cover the perky, lifted dome that has been created and then a new (usually smaller) circular opening for the areola is placed at the high point of the cone, creating your new lifted, full and shapely breast.
Adam R. Kolker, MD, explains: Although silicone breasts feel similar to real breasts, they are still man-made and don’t feel like natural breast tissue. You’ll be more likely to notice there’s an implant in a woman who began with little breast tissue than a woman who had more breast tissue to begin with. Smaller implants and those that are placed below the muscle are harder to detect.
The breast cancer studies Cancer in the Augmented Breast: Diagnosis and Prognosis (1993) and Breast Cancer after Augmentation Mammoplasty (2001) of women with breast implant prostheses reported no significant differences in disease-stage at the time of the diagnosis of cancer; prognoses are similar in both groups of women, with augmented patients at a lower risk for subsequent cancer recurrence or death.[103][104] Conversely, the use of implants for breast reconstruction after breast cancer mastectomy appears to have no negative effect upon the incidence of cancer-related death.[105] That patients with breast implants are more often diagnosed with palpable—but not larger—tumors indicates that equal-sized tumors might be more readily palpated in augmented patients, which might compensate for the impaired mammogram images.[106] The ready palpability of the breast-cancer tumor(s) is consequent to breast tissue thinning by compression, innately in smaller breasts a priori (because they have lesser tissue volumes), and that the implant serves as a radio-opaque base against which a cancerous tumor can be differentiated.[107]
The study Safety and Effectiveness of Mentor’s MemoryGel Implants at 6 Years (2009), which was a branch study of the U.S. FDA's core clinical trials for primary breast augmentation surgery patients, reported low device-rupture rates of 1.1 per cent at 6-years post-implantation.[49] The first series of MRI evaluations of the silicone breast implants with thick filler-gel reported a device-rupture rate of 1 percent, or less, at the median 6-year device-age.[50] Statistically, the manual examination (palpation) of the woman is inadequate for accurately evaluating if a breast implant has ruptured. The study, The Diagnosis of Silicone Breast implant Rupture: Clinical Findings Compared with Findings at Magnetic Resonance Imaging (2005), reported that, in asymptomatic patients, only 30 per cent of the ruptured breast implants are accurately palpated and detected by an experienced plastic surgeon, whereas MRI examinations accurately detected 86 per cent of breast implant ruptures.[51] Therefore, the U.S. FDA recommended scheduled MRI examinations, as silent-rupture screenings, beginning at the 3-year-mark post-implantation, and then every two years, thereafter.[22] Nonetheless, beyond the U.S., the medical establishments of other nations have not endorsed routine MRI screening, and, in its stead, proposed that such a radiologic examination be reserved for two purposes: (i) for the woman with a suspected breast implant rupture; and (ii) for the confirmation of mammographic and ultrasonic studies that indicate the presence of a ruptured breast implant.[52]