Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Published · Last updated
This page describes products and general use; it is not medical advice.
On this page
A silicone dressing for a skin tear is a wound dressing with a soft silicone layer against the wound or surrounding skin, so it can be lifted off without gripping the tissue. It is used by clinic and care-home staff, and chosen by the people who stock them. This page explains which dressing layers published sources name for each International Skin Tear Advisory Panel (ISTAP) type, what the one randomised trial showed and who paid for it, and why adhesive removal matters.
What a silicone dressing for a skin tear is
ISTAP defines a skin tear as “a traumatic wound caused by mechanical forces, including removal of adhesives,” with severity that “may vary by depth (not extending through the subcutaneous layer)” (LeBlanc and Woo, 2022). That definition matters for product choice: the same tape or border that holds a dressing can cause the next tear when it is removed. Silicone dressings are one family of non-adherent products. Two forms appear in the sources: a silicone contact layer (a thin mesh placed on the wound that may need a secondary dressing) and a soft silicone foam, including bordered foam.
For related background see what Mepitel is, what silicone adhesive is and what a non-adherent dressing is.
ISTAP skin tear types and the dressing layers sources name
ISTAP classifies skin tears into three types by how much tissue is lost. The right-hand column shows the dressing layers that published sources name.
| ISTAP type | Definition (ISTAP, via LeBlanc and Woo 2022) | Dressing layers named in published sources |
|---|---|---|
| Type 1 | No tissue loss: linear or flap tear where the flap can be repositioned to cover the wound bed | Non-adherent mesh dressings, including silicone mesh, are listed for Types 1, 2 and 3 (Wounds International, 2018) |
| Type 2 | Partial flap loss: the flap cannot be repositioned to cover the wound bed | Same listing; the 2018 document describes a silicone contact layer with a non-adhesive or silicone foam as a secondary dressing, depending on exudate and location |
| Type 3 | Total flap loss: the entire wound bed is exposed | Same listing as above |
The Wounds International document also lists the STAR classification (categories 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and 3) alongside the ISTAP types, so you may see either scheme on a protocol. Per that document, non-adherent mesh dressings “facilitate moisture balance … and allow atraumatic removal” and “may require a secondary dressing.”
What the randomised trial showed and who funded it
The main published trial is LeBlanc and Woo, International Wound Journal 2022;19:125-134: a pragmatic randomised controlled study of 126 people in two long-term care facilities in Ontario, Canada (16 Type 1, 55 Type 2 and 55 Type 3 tears; mostly on the legs including ankles, 42.1%, and arms, 40.5%). The treatment group received soft silicone dressings (a contact layer and/or a foam); the control group received non-adhesive dressings used in local practice, with no silicone.
| Measure | Silicone dressings | Non-adhesive controls |
|---|---|---|
| Healed within 3 weeks | 96.9% (n=63) | 34.4% (n=21) |
| Healed at week 2 | 89.2% | 27.9% |
| Time to heal | 11 days | 22 days |
The paper reports that skin tears healed 50% faster in the treatment group. Read it with its limits in mind: the authors received a research grant from Mölnlycke Health Care, maker of the silicone dressings used (Mepitel One and Mepilex Border Flex), and both authors are members of that company’s speakers bureau; the control dressings were Alldress and Telfa; the study took place in long-term care; and the comparison was against non-adhesive dressings, not against every alternative. It is a single trial.
Contact layer, foam and bordered foam
- Contact layer. A thin mesh described as allowing atraumatic removal; the Wounds International document notes it may require a secondary dressing.
- Foam. The same document names a non-adhesive or silicone foam as the secondary layer, depending on exudate and location.
- Bordered foam. The trial used a bordered silicone foam (Mepilex Border Flex) as one of its treatment products. The silicone border is the retention method, which is relevant because adhesive removal is a named cause of skin tears.
Silicone contact layers reach the US market through FDA 510(k) clearance under differing product codes. In openFDA (checked 2026-11-01), Mepitel Non-Adherent Silicone Dressing appears as K984371 (code MGP, “Dressing, Wound And Burn, Occlusive,” decided 1999-03-03) and as K914604 (code NAB, “Gauze / Sponge, Nonresorbable For External Use,” class 1, 21 CFR 878.4014, decided 1992-03-25), and Mepitel Ag as K130040 (code FRO, “Dressing, Wound, Drug,” decided 2014-02-12). The practical point is that a product’s own label and instructions for use are the document to check, not its category name.
What the sources say a dressing should be
Wounds International lists these qualities for an ideal skin tear dressing: it should “be flexible and mould to contours,” “provide secure, but not aggressive, retention” and “afford extended wear time.” This page does not rank brands.
Safe use and handling basics
- Each product has its own instructions for use; the Wounds International document itself says to consult a healthcare provider and the instructions for use before application.
- Decisions about a particular wound are for a trained clinician, not a product page.
- Because the ISTAP definition includes adhesive removal, retention products deserve the same scrutiny as the dressing. See what medical tape is.
- Skin tears are one wound type among several; types of wounds sets out the others, and highly absorbent wound dressings covers the heavy-exudate end.
Common mistakes
- Treating “non-adherent” and “silicone” as the same thing; silicone is one way of making a dressing non-adherent.
- Quoting “50% faster” without the setting, funder and comparator.
- Overlooking the retention method: the ISTAP definition includes adhesive removal as a cause of skin tears.
- Assuming a contact layer is a complete dressing; Wounds International notes it may require a secondary dressing.
Frequently asked questions
What does a silicone dressing for a skin tear have to do with ISTAP types?
ISTAP sorts skin tears into Types 1, 2 and 3 by tissue loss. Wounds International (2018, supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Acelity) lists non-adherent mesh dressings, including silicone mesh, for all three types. The one randomised trial reported faster healing with silicone dressings than with non-adhesive controls, in a study supported by a manufacturer research grant. This is product information, not advice on treating a wound.
What does the trial’s “50% faster” mean?
Skin tears healed in 11 days with silicone dressings versus 22 days with the control dressings, among 126 long-term care residents.
Is a silicone contact layer a complete dressing on its own?
Wounds International states that non-adherent mesh dressings “may require a secondary dressing,” and names a non-adhesive or silicone foam as an example, depending on exudate and location.
Sources
- LeBlanc K, Woo K. A pragmatic randomised controlled clinical study to evaluate the use of silicone dressings for the treatment of skin tears. Int Wound J 2022;19:125-134. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8684852 (checked 2026-11-01).
- Wounds International. Case studies evaluation: ADAPTIC TOUCH Non-Adhering Silicone Dressing in skin tear management, 2018 supplement. https://woundsinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/9e173dc453cb4dd7ea4afaae3911d8f7.pdf (checked 2026-11-01).
- openFDA 510(k) database, https://api.fda.gov/device/510k.json (checked 2026-11-01).
