Teardrop Breast Implants with Dual Plane Technique

Patient Overview

• Patient: Cybel

• Age: 26 years old

• Gender: Female

• Procedures: Breast augmentation with teardrop (anatomical) silicone implants, dual plane technique

• After photos taken at: 10 days post-surgery

• Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Why Some Patients Are Better Suited for Teardrop Implants

The vast majority of breast augmentation procedures worldwide use round implants — and for good reason. Round implants are versatile, forgiving with respect to rotation, and produce beautiful results across a wide range of anatomies. But there are patients for whom a round implant is not the optimal choice, and recognising these cases is what separates formulaic surgery from truly individualised planning. Cybel, a twenty-six-year-old patient of Dr. Cem Berkay Sinaci, is one of those patients, and the decision to use teardrop anatomical implants in her case was driven by specific anatomical reasoning rather than personal preference or trend.

Dr. Sinaci, a European board-certified plastic surgeon (FEBOPRAS) and active member of ISAPS and ASPS, selects implant shape based on what each individual breast needs — not on what is most popular or most convenient. In Cybel's case, the anatomical assessment during consultation identified characteristics that would be better served by the tapered profile of a teardrop implant than by the symmetric volume distribution of a round one.

How Teardrop Implants Differ from Round Implants

The fundamental difference between round and teardrop implants lies in how they distribute their volume within the breast. A round implant contains its gel fill in a symmetrical configuration — equal volume above and below the midpoint. When placed in the breast and influenced by gravity, the gel redistributes slightly, creating modest lower pole fullness while maintaining upper pole projection.

A teardrop implant is engineered with deliberate asymmetry. The upper pole is tapered and thin, gradually increasing in projection toward the lower pole where the maximum volume is concentrated. This mimics the natural anatomy of a youthful breast, which carries the majority of its volume in the lower half while the upper chest transitions smoothly from the clavicle into the breast mound without an abrupt step-off.

For patients who desire augmentation that is virtually undetectable — where the goal is not visible upper pole fullness but a gentle, sloping contour that appears entirely natural — the teardrop shape offers an advantage that round implants cannot replicate. The tapered upper pole eliminates the rounded fullness above the nipple that, in some patients, can signal augmentation to the trained or untrained eye.

The Anatomy That Favours Anatomical Implants

Not every patient benefits from a teardrop implant, and selecting them indiscriminately would produce suboptimal results in many cases. The patients who benefit most share certain anatomical and aesthetic characteristics that align with what the teardrop shape delivers.

Patients with thin soft tissue coverage over the upper pole — where the skin and subcutaneous fat between the implant and the surface are minimal — often show visible implant edges or an unnaturally round upper breast with round implants. The tapered upper pole of a teardrop implant reduces the volume in precisely this area, creating a smoother, more gradual transition from chest wall to breast that is far less likely to appear augmented.

Patients whose natural breast shape before augmentation is already somewhat tapered or conical — where the existing contour slopes gently rather than projecting roundly — may achieve a more harmonious result when the implant echoes this natural geometry rather than imposing a different one. The teardrop reinforces the existing breast language rather than rewriting it.

At twenty-six, Cybel's tissue characteristics and aesthetic goals aligned with the teardrop profile. Her preoperative anatomy and her desire for enhancement that would be indistinguishable from natural development made the anatomical implant the logical choice.

Why the Dual Plane Complements Teardrop Implants

Dr. Sinaci paired Cybel's teardrop implants with the dual plane technique — a surgical approach where the upper portion of the implant sits behind the pectoralis muscle while the lower portion is covered only by the breast gland and fascia. This combination is not arbitrary; it addresses specific challenges that teardrop implants present.

The intact upper muscle coverage is particularly important with anatomical implants because the upper pole of a teardrop is its thinnest region. Without adequate soft tissue coverage in this area, the implant edge could become visible or palpable through the skin, undermining the very naturalness that the teardrop shape is designed to achieve. The pectoralis muscle provides a reliable layer of camouflage over this vulnerable zone.

The released lower muscle fibres allow the implant's maximum projection point — located in the lower pole of the teardrop — to expand the breast tissue fully and create the natural lower pole curve that defines the anatomical shape. If the muscle remained intact across the lower breast, it would compress the implant's lower pole and prevent it from achieving its intended contour, effectively neutralising the advantage of choosing an anatomical shape in the first place.

This synergy between implant shape and surgical plane reflects the integrated planning philosophy Dr. Sinaci developed during his fellowship with the internationally renowned plastic surgeon Raul Gonzalez in Brazil and advanced cadaver training in Bangkok. Each technical decision supports the others, creating a result that exceeds what any single element could achieve in isolation.

The Rotation Question: Addressing the Primary Concern

The most frequently cited disadvantage of teardrop implants is the risk of rotation. Because the implant is directionally shaped — with a defined top and bottom — any rotation within the pocket produces a visible change in breast contour. A round implant, being symmetric, looks identical regardless of orientation. This rotational risk is the primary reason many surgeons default to round implants for every patient.

However, the clinical significance of this risk is often overstated. Modern anatomical implants are manufactured with textured surfaces specifically designed to promote tissue adherence within the pocket. This texturing creates a controlled degree of integration between the implant shell and the surrounding capsule, effectively anchoring the implant in its intended orientation. The incidence of clinically significant rotation with contemporary textured anatomical implants is low — reported in the literature at approximately one to three percent.

For Cybel, this small risk was weighed against the aesthetic advantage that the teardrop shape offered for her specific anatomy. Dr. Sinaci's surgical technique — creating a pocket precisely sized to the implant dimensions without excessive dead space — further minimises the possibility of rotation by eliminating the room an implant would need to turn within its pocket.

Reading the Ten-Day Result

Cybel's ten-day photographs capture the teardrop augmentation in its early post-operative state. The characteristic features of the anatomical shape are already visible despite the expected oedema and tissue firmness of early recovery. The upper pole shows a gentle slope rather than the rounded fullness that a round implant would produce at this same time point. The lower pole carries the dominant volume, creating a breast contour that even at ten days reads as natural rather than surgically enhanced.

The swelling at ten days is still meaningful but has decreased substantially from the peak that occurred during the first week. The breast shape will continue to refine as the oedema resolves and the dual plane pocket stabilises over the coming weeks. By six to eight weeks, the majority of the settling process will be complete, and the full benefit of the teardrop shape — the effortless, natural-appearing augmentation that motivated the implant selection — will be clearly evident.

Individualised Implant Selection in Istanbul

Cybel's case illustrates a principle that applies to every aspect of breast augmentation but is most visible in the shape decision: the best implant is the one that matches the individual patient, not the one that is most commonly used. Teardrop implants are not superior to round implants in absolute terms — they are superior for specific patients whose anatomy and goals align with what the anatomical shape delivers. For patients researching breast augmentation in Istanbul, understanding that implant shape is a clinical decision based on tissue analysis and aesthetic objectives, not a matter of fashion or surgeon habit, provides the foundation for a productive consultation and a result that looks and feels naturally their own.