unders or overs??

by jade 43 1st March 2013, 4:56 pm

hi,
im getting my BA on the 11th of april and have been told to have overs which tbh i dont really know much about but after talking to a friend she were really worrying me saying i should go for unders as overs sag and you can see them alot more
does anybody know any pros and cons on both? im just really confused
Thank you :)

by misf1 1st March 2013, 5:28 pm

Having had overs I can honestly say they aren't something to be terrified of. I've had mine over 3 years now and don't have an ounce of sagging. They feel and look almost natural. I say almost as they feel slightly firmer than real breast tissue and they're very perky, can't say a lot of women my age are this perky naked lol. All breasts will sag, natural or BA boobies will all suffer it. With overs they will sag much like a natural breast, so over time gravity will lure them south. With under s the muscle holds the implant up but the breast tissue still sags so can end up with a snoopy look. Both placements would need further ops to lift the saving, so either way. If you have enough breast tissue to cover the implant then overs will give you the most natural look and feel. Under s are usually for people who do not have much breast tissue so need the coverage of the muscle to prevent the implant looking obvious ie the posh spice look

by **COOKIE** 1st March 2013, 5:30 pm

Your friend really needs to do her research before frightening you babe.

If you have enough breast tissue then this acts a cushion to cover the implant babe and you obviously have enough coverage so I really wouldn't worry.

This is a quote from James McDiarmid a very well respected BAAPS member.

James McDiarmid wrote:The decision as to whether an implant is best placed under (usually partial under or dual plane) or over the muscle is one that is best decided at consultation. In general very skinny people with minimal breast tissue do better with implants under the muscle. When implants are behind the muscle they are normally fixed higher and more firmly to the chest wall. They also move when the muscle contracts. I tend to use teardrop shaped (anatomical) implants behind the muscle.

Implants placed in front of the muscle tend to hang, move, feel and (very importantly) age more like a natural breast.
My feeling is that if a patient has the anatomy to support the implant being placed in front of the muscle then this is normally the best place for it. This is after all the natural pocket occupied by the mammary gland. I tend to use round shaped implants in front of the muscle.
An experienced surgeon should be able to advise you appropriately,

And here:

James McDiarmid wrote:The usual answer is that it all boils down to thickness of soft tissue coverage (determined by skin pinch) and to a large extent it does, however there are several other factors which figure in the decision.
This conventional wisdom is largely based prior to the advent of form stable (less ripply) implants and holds very true in extremely thin ladies.

After 20 years of medical practice and 10 years NHS consultant and private practice the basis upon which I take the decision to encourage patients to have either unders (usually partial unders/dual plane) versus overs has evolved quite far.

I do not think that there is a correct plane for every patient indeed certain patients would have a good static (i:e photographic) result with a round or teardrop shaped implant either in front of or behind the muscle.

What I would definitely say to you though is that the enhanced mobility of a subglandular (over) implant means a more natural dynamic result. The implant will move with the breast gland as it is filling the natural plane that the glandular tissue normally occupies.
So an 'over' implant will hang, wobble, feel and age more like a normal breast than an 'under'.

The enhanced tissue adherence seen with 'unders' means that in addition to being prone to move with pec major contraction the implants will tend to be rather fixed to the chest wall and not flop to the side when the patient lies down in bed or on a sun-lounger. This is both an advantage and disadvantage as unders will be more gravitationally stable through this enhanced tissue fixity. It can also make them more prone to development of double-bubble as the breast ages and droops and the implant stays up high.

In a nutshell - for the most natural result go for overs if you can. Unders are great in certain patients but not necessary unless you are super skinny.

I hope this helps hun.

Placements are tailored to our body type. Its not as simple as just saying I WANT under (partials) or overs. Its all about tailoring your BA to YOU to get the best result for you babe. Xx

by doracina 12th March 2013, 11:27 am

This has been fantastic! Stars

Honestly in the year I have been doing my research this has to be the most informative information Ive had about the decision of over vs under. My decision has now been made!
Thank you!!!! yahoo