Motiva vs Mentor Breast Implants: What Patients Should Know

Dr Scott J Turner | Specialist Plastic Surgeon (FRACS)

Key Takeaways

• Motiva and Mentor are two of the implant brands used in Australian practice. Neither is a single product; each brand spans several shapes, profiles, surfaces and gel formulations.
• The question “which brand is better” is structured wrong. Implant choice is made by matching a specific product to your breast width, chest wall, tissue coverage and profile requirements, not by brand.
• Both brands have products listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. Specific product availability and any regulatory conditions vary and can change over time.
• The TGA has cancelled all breast implants containing micro transponders from the register, across every manufacturer. Patients who already have one do not need it removed on that basis.
• No implant is risk-free. Surface type relates to BIA-ALCL association, and that discussion is a mandatory part of consultation for any brand.
• The measurements that determine the result, base width, volume and projection, matter more than the brand name or the profile label.

Patients often ask whether Motiva or Mentor breast implants are better, and the honest answer is that the question is structured the wrong way. Implant choice is not made on brand alone; it is made by matching a specific implant to your breast width, chest wall shape, tissue coverage, profile requirements, surface considerations and overall surgical plan.

This article compares the two brands in general terms, covering their product ranges, surface options, gel terminology, regulatory status and how brand fits into tissue-based planning. It is written to help you understand what you will encounter in your own research, and it does not recommend one brand over the other. No preference between these brands is expressed or implied anywhere in this article, and none should be inferred from it. For an overview of how implant planning works, see the breast augmentation surgery page.

What Motiva and Mentor are

Motiva and Mentor are two of the implant brands used in Australian breast augmentation practice, and neither is a single product. Each brand includes multiple shapes, profiles, surfaces and gel formulations.

Motiva is manufactured by Establishment Labs, and its Australian range includes the Ergonomix, Ergonomix2 and Round Plus lines. Mentor is manufactured by Mentor Medical Systems, and its Australian range includes MemoryGel, MemoryGel Xtra and CPG anatomical implants, along with smooth and Siltex microtextured surface options.

Both brands have products listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods maintained by the TGA. Specific product availability and any regulatory conditions on individual products vary, and these can change over time, so current availability is confirmed at consultation.

Quick comparison

The table gives a side-by-side reference for the main product terminology in each brand. It is a starting point for understanding what you will encounter in your research, not a recommendation. The clinical decision is which specific product within a brand suits your anatomy.

Motiva: product terminology

Motiva products use proprietary terminology patients often encounter in research. Round Plus, Ergonomix and Ergonomix2 are the main categories in the Australian range. ProgressiveGel is the terminology for the gel formulations. SmoothSilk, also called SilkSurface, refers to the surface technology, and BluSeal refers to the outer shell construction.

Mentor: product terminology

Mentor’s Australian range covers a broader set of categories, and its terminology works differently. MemoryGel is the core silicone gel line, and MemoryGel Xtra is the higher fill-ratio version of it, built to give more projection and upper-pole fullness at a given base width. CPG, meaning Contour Profile Gel, is the shaped teardrop-form option, supplied in a range of height and projection combinations rather than as a single form.

On surfaces, Mentor uses smooth and Siltex microtextured. Saline implants and tissue expanders also form part of the catalogue, which matters mainly in reconstructive and staged cases rather than in primary cosmetic augmentation.

Regulatory status of both ranges

Two regulatory facts are often reported in a way that suggests a difference between brands where none exists, so both are worth stating plainly.

Conditions of inclusion apply to every implant on the Australian market. Following the 2019 post-market review, the TGA imposed conditions on all breast implants that remain available in Australia, and imposes them on any new implant entering the register. Conditions are a feature of the Australian market, not a characteristic of one manufacturer.

The micro-transponder cancellation was industry-wide. Some implants, including certain Motiva products, contained a Qid RFID micro-transponder, a chip storing implant details that a handheld scanner can read. The TGA received a safety signal about how these transponders interact with MRI, specifically the potential for visual artefacts that could obscure imaging results. Following its review, the TGA cancelled all breast implants containing micro transponders from the register, across every manufacturer rather than any one brand. The TGA has reported no cases of patient harm associated with these devices.

Patients who already have an implant with a micro transponder do not need it removed on that basis. The TGA has confirmed these devices are not being physically recalled and do not need to be removed from patients if already implanted. If you have existing implants and are uncertain about your situation, that is a conversation worth having at consultation.

Register status is a regulatory fact about product availability at a point in time. It changes, it applies to specific product lines rather than to a brand as a whole, and it is not in itself a measure of which implant suits a given patient.

Implant surface and BIA-ALCL

Implant surface is one of the most discussed differences between brands. The TGA began a post-market review of breast implants in 2019 over concerns about BIA-ALCL and imposed regulatory conditions on the implants remaining available in Australia.

The surface categories relevant to that discussion are smooth surfaces, used by Mentor in part of its range and carrying the lowest reported BIA-ALCL association; Siltex microtextured surfaces, used by Mentor on textured implants and carrying a lower association than the macrotextured implants that have been withdrawn from the Australian market; and Motiva’s SmoothSilk surface, which is classified differently from traditional smooth or textured surfaces. BIA-ALCL is a rare condition, covered in full in the BIA-ALCL guide. The TGA requires manufacturers to include BIA-ALCL risk information in the patient materials for all breast implants, no implant on the Australian market is risk-free, and an informed-consent discussion around it is a mandatory part of consultation for any brand.

The regulatory context is worth understanding, because it explains why the implant landscape looks different now than it did before 2019. The higher-risk macrotextured implants associated with most BIA-ALCL cases have been withdrawn from the Australian market, which is why the surfaces still available, smooth, microtextured, and Motiva’s differently-classified surface, sit at the lower end of the reported association. This is a shift that affects both brands and every surgeon working in Australia, not a point of difference between the two. What it means for a patient today is that the surface conversation is less about avoiding a high-risk device, since those are no longer sold here, and more about understanding the residual differences between the low-risk surfaces that remain, which is part of the informed-consent discussion regardless of which brand is being considered.

Gel feel and implant behaviour

Patients sometimes ask which brand feels softer after surgery, but brand alone does not determine post-operative feel. What does affect it is tissue thickness over the implant, placement whether submuscular, dual plane or subglandular, implant size relative to your soft tissue, capsule formation over the following months, and individual healing.

A given volume in a patient with thin upper-pole tissue feels different from the same volume in a patient with adequate cover, and that difference is mostly about the patient rather than the implant. Brand-level claims about gel cohesion can give a misleading impression of what a result will feel like.

Shape, profile and dimensions

Both brands offer different dimensions across volume, base width and projection, and the labels are not standardised between them. A high-profile implant from one brand is not necessarily equivalent to a high-profile implant from another, so cross-brand comparison requires attention to the width and projection numbers rather than the marketing label.

The three numbers that matter when comparing options across brands for a specific patient are the base width in centimetres, the volume in cubic centimetres, and the projection in centimetres. These determine whether an implant will fit the breast footprint and produce the intended silhouette, and the brand name and profile label are secondary to them. The right implant has to fit your anatomy: volume that exceeds your tissue support, or a base width that exceeds your natural footprint, produces a result that does not sit well long-term regardless of brand. How these dimensions interact is covered in the implant size, shape and profile guide.

This is where cross-brand comparison most often misleads patients. Someone researching implants will read that one brand offers a “high profile” option and another does too, and assume the two are interchangeable, when the projection in centimetres may differ between them, and the base width each is built on may differ again. Two implants with the same stated volume can have different footprints, and two with the same profile label can project by different amounts. The only reliable way to compare across brands is to set the marketing labels aside and look at the measured dimensions against your own base width, which is what the consultation measurement is for. It is also why a size or profile that suited a friend or a photo is not a reliable guide to what will suit you.

Is one brand better than the other?

Neither is better. The more useful question is which implant suits your anatomy, tissue coverage, projection requirements, surface considerations, safety discussion and surgical plan.

The factors that feed into the decision at consultation include breast base width, chest wall shape, tissue thickness and skin envelope quality, desired profile and projection, surface considerations and the BIA-ALCL discussion, round versus anatomical shape, current Australian availability of specific products, and long-term monitoring through the device registry.

Brand alone is rarely the deciding factor. The specific products within each brand are the choice being made, and that choice follows from your anatomy and the surgical plan rather than from a brand name.

Safety, monitoring and registry registration

Brand choice is one part of safety among several: surgical technique, sterile handling, an accredited hospital setting, a specialist anaesthetist, the follow-up protocol, and device tracking all matter.

The Australian Breast Device Registry is a Commonwealth Government health initiative managed by Monash University that records breast device surgeries and tracks safety, performance and complication trends across the Australian patient population. Registering every implant supports long-term monitoring and provides traceability if a safety issue emerges with a specific product line. Device tracking in Australia is mandatory rather than optional, and patients can request their registry record at any time.

How the implant choice is made

The implant decision comes from measurement-based clinical assessment rather than a brand starting point. At consultation the process is to measure your breast base width and chest wall dimensions, assess tissue coverage and skin envelope quality, discuss size and profile within the range your anatomy supports, consider smooth versus microtextured surface options with the BIA-ALCL discussion that goes with them, confirm current Australian availability for the specific products being considered, and record the implant details for registry registration.

The brand rarely enters as the first decision. It emerges from the anatomical assessment, and where two products from different brands would both suit a patient’s measurements and goals, the choice among them is made on the specifics of fit and surface rather than on the brand as a whole.

Frequently asked questions

Is one brand better than the other?

Neither is better. The right implant depends on your anatomy, tissue coverage, projection requirements, surface considerations and surgical plan. The relevant comparison is between specific products within each brand, matched to your case, rather than between the brands as wholes.

Are breast implants with micro-transponders still available in Australia?

No. The TGA’s post-market review cancelled all breast implants containing micro transponders from the register, across all manufacturers, after a safety signal about how the transponders interact with MRI. Patients who already have one do not need it removed on that basis. The TGA has confirmed these devices are not being physically recalled and do not need to be removed from patients if already implanted.

What is the difference between MemoryGel and MemoryGel Xtra?

Both are Mentor silicone gel lines. MemoryGel Xtra carries a higher fill ratio than standard MemoryGel, which produces more projection and upper-pole fullness at a given base width. Which of them suits a given patient depends on tissue cover and the projection the breast footprint will support, assessed by measurement rather than chosen from a description.

Are breast implants permanent?

No. Current-generation implants are not designed to last indefinitely, and most patients need further surgery at some point, whether for replacement, revision or management of a complication. Long-term monitoring through imaging and clinical review is part of responsible care, and the evidence on longevity is covered in the implant lifespan guide.

How is the choice between brands made?

Through measurement-based assessment at consultation. Breast base width, chest wall shape, tissue coverage, desired projection, surface considerations and the surgical plan all feed into the decision, and the specific product is matched to those findings. The choice is made at consultation rather than decided in advance, and brand is secondary to whether a given product fits your anatomy.

Dr Scott J Turner is a Specialist Plastic Surgeon (FRACS) consulting in Sydney. A GP referral is required before an initial surgical consultation under the current Medical Board of Australia framework. Which implant suits a given patient is determined by measurement against individual anatomy rather than by brand, so to have that assessed properly, contact the practice to arrange a consultation.