|WikiProject Technology||(Rated Stub-class)|
|It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool or Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
is it true that sandblasting the material makes the skin attach to it? - Omegatron 15:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- As the article states, the subdermal portions of the implants would have holes in them. This would be so that the skin and underlying flesh could grow into the implant, holding it in place; a good example of this would be if you dropped a sponge in a vat of some sort of syrup; all those holes let the syrup (representing skin growth) penetrate more deeply and hold the object much more firmly in place.
- Sandblasting, therefore, would put a whole lot of tiny pockmarks on the implant, increasing the surface area exponentially. Therefore, sandblasting would probably make it stay in better, although there are probably sanctioned methods that work better. --OuraiP-T writing from 126.96.36.199 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that is the sanctioned method. I'll look around later. — Omegatron 21:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have thought sandblasting would be used; if it creates lots of little dimples in the surface of the material, it provides a nice niche for bacteria to grow in. There is a page on the BMEzine Wiki with more information. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
While I am normally hesitant to ask for pictures on anything that i can call "body modding" in this case I feel its necessary. Would it be like that scuzzy effect in scifi movies made in the 80s where someone has a headjack or whatnot? I assume, unlike in those movies, the skin around it does not become slightly flesh colored clay. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- As for me, these should not be mixed. Implants via (transdermal) skin, say RFID, and body modifications with are totally different purpose and technique. — Alex Khimich (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Merge: The transdermal page includes both medical (such as RFID) and aesthetic uses, so arguing that they shouldn't be mixed isn't consistent with the current pages. The topics are very similar, including similar procedures for placing the implants, and the page length can support them both. Klbrain (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that RFID implants -- "microchip implant (human)" -- are totally different from "transdermal implant", so should not be merged.
- However, as far as I can tell from reading the two articles "transdermal implant" and "microdermal implants", those two are similar enough that one article can easily cover both.
- So I merged those two articles, as suggested above.
- Done. --DavidCary (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)