What is the best material for a salivary (saliva) duct stent?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 5, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Best Material for Salivary Duct Stent

Silicone is the preferred material for salivary duct stents based on its superior biocompatibility, low thrombogenicity, and proven clinical track record in ductal applications.

Material Properties and Selection

Silicone as the Gold Standard

  • Silicone represents the optimal choice for salivary duct stenting due to its soft, biocompatible properties that minimize trauma to delicate ductal epithelium 1.

  • Silicone has been associated with fewer infections compared to polyvinyl chloride or polyethylene in catheter applications, a principle that extends to ductal stenting 1.

  • The material is one of the least traumatic and thrombogenic options available for intraluminal devices 1.

  • Silicone demonstrates excellent compatibility with biological fluids and is less susceptible to degradation by various substances compared to alternatives like polyurethane 1.

  • Clinical experience with silicone Montgomery salivary bypass stents has demonstrated effectiveness in managing complex esophageal and salivary disruptions, with successful outcomes in diverting the oral-alimentary stream 2.

Specific Silicone Stent Types

  • Hypospadias silastic stent tubes have been used for salivary duct stenting, though they carry higher rates of obstruction (100%) and irritation (67%) compared to alternative designs 3.

  • Fr. 5 pediatric feeding tubes (typically silicone-based) demonstrated superior performance with 0% obstruction rates and 33% irritation rates in salivary duct applications 3.

Alternative Materials Under Investigation

  • Polyurethane is tougher and stiffer than silicone but this increased rigidity is associated with higher risk of mechanical complications in delicate structures 1.

  • Shape-memory polymers (94%PCL-06%PGMA) show promise as alternatives with superior drainage capacity and resistance to biofilm formation compared to silicone in nasolacrimal applications, though this technology remains investigational for salivary ducts 4.

  • Starch-based resorbable stents have been explored but demonstrate rapid hydrolysis in simulated saliva due to α-amylase content, limiting their practical utility 5.

Critical Technical Considerations

Stent Fixation Requirements

  • Stents must be secured with sutures of adequate strength—5-0 nylon or stronger—to prevent dislocation 3.

  • When 6-0 nylon sutures were used for fixation, dislocation rates reached 47.4%, compared to 0% with 5-0 nylon sutures 3.

Duration of Stenting

  • The optimal duration for salivary duct stent placement may be as short as 2 weeks for post-sialendoscopy ductoplasty 3.

  • For complex esophageal disruptions managed with silicone stents, removal typically occurs 2-16 weeks after placement without stricture formation 2.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Avoid using stent materials with high stiffness in salivary ducts, as greater catheter stiffness is associated with increased risk of mechanical complications and epithelial damage 1.

  • Do not use inadequate suture strength for stent fixation, as this leads to unacceptably high dislocation rates 3.

  • Avoid starch-based materials in salivary applications due to rapid degradation from salivary α-amylase 5.

  • Be aware that silicone catheters are more prone to compression and "pinch off" compared to stiffer materials, requiring appropriate sizing and placement technique 1.

Practical Implementation

  • Select the smallest diameter stent that maintains adequate ductal patency to minimize tissue trauma 1.

  • For post-sialendoscopy applications, Fr. 5 pediatric feeding tubes offer superior performance over traditional hypospadias silastic tubes 3.

  • Secure all stents with 5-0 nylon sutures or stronger to prevent dislocation 3.

  • Plan for stent removal at 2-16 weeks depending on the clinical indication and healing progress 2, 3.

References

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Research

Post-sialendoscopy ductoplasty by salivary duct stent placements.

European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2016

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.