Table 1.
Scoring macroscopic and microscopic evaluations.
Macroscopic evaluation | |
---|---|
1 The growth of the implant | |
Definition | Score |
The implant vanished, or it was visible without the vesicle | 1 |
The implant fashioned a vesicle with the major dimension less than 2 mm | 2 |
The implant fashioned a cyst containing fluid, with the major dimension ⩾ 2 mm, but < 4.5 mm | 3 |
The major dimension of the vesicle was ⩾ 4.5, but < 6 | 4 |
Implant size ⩾ 6 mm | 5 |
2 The adhesion severity | |
Definition | Score |
Without resistance to separation | 0 |
Partially resistant to separation | 0.5 |
Sharp dissection | 1 |
3 The adhesion extent | |
Definition | Score |
No adhesions points | 0 |
Points 25% of traumatized area | 1 |
Points 50.0% of traumatized area | 2 |
The whole points of traumatized area involvement | 3 |
Microscopic evaluation | |
1 Implants Histologically were scored based on a semi-quantitative assessment | |
Definition | Score |
No epithelium | 0 |
Extremely little (insufficient) to remain in the epithelial layers | 1 |
Maintaining the average epithelial layer with leukocyte infiltration | 2 |
The epithelial layers are well maintained and remain | 3 |
2 Masson’s trichrome staining evaluated the presence of stroke and fibrous elements | |
Definition | Score |
No fibrosis | 0 |
Minimal growth of fibrous tissue | 1 |
Irregular fibrous tissue growth | 2 |
Integrated and hyalinized accumulated fibrosis | 3 |