Our dedication to helping patients led to the creation of Safetac® Technology, the original “less-pain” adhesive technology layer. Safetac’s unique difference is that it gently adheres to dry skin but doesn’t stick to the wound itself . This means you can remove it easily without damaging the skin, which also means less pain.1-7 Dressings with Safetac Technology can be lifted and adjusted, without additional fixation, so you can check the wound as needed.

Created Exclusively for Mölnlycke

After witnessing the pain and stress experienced by patients during dressing changes, our inventor, Thomas Fabo, made it his mission to develop this breakthrough adhesive. Considering that more than 40% of people consider pain at dressing changes to be the worst part of living with wounds8, it’s easy to see why dressings with Safetac are preferred!

– Traditional Adhesive –
Skin stripping with traditional adhesives

Minimizes the stripping effect that causes skin pain.

Revolutionary Technology

We began incorporating Safetac in products in 1989, and it changed wound care forever. In the years since Safetac was launched, it’s been trusted by healthcare providers and made a difference in the lives of patients around the world. In fact, nine out of ten patients prefer dressings with Safetac compared to traditional adhesives.9

Trusted by healthcare providers and used in hospitals, Mepilex® Border Flex and Mepilex® Border Flex Lite dressings are designed to make a meaningful difference in the healing process.



1. Van Overschelde P, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing two wound dressings used after elective hip and knee arthroplasty. Poster presentation at the 5th Congress of WUWHS, Florence, Italy, 25-29 Sep, 2016.
2. Silverstein P, et al. An open, parallel, randomized, comparative, multicenter study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, performance, tolerance, and safety of a silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing (intervention) vs silver sulfadiazine cream. J Burn Care Res. 2011;32(6):617-626.
3. Gee Kee EL, et al. Randomized controlled trial of three burns dressings for partial thickness burns in children. Burns. 2015;41(5):946-955.
4. David F. et al. A randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing the performance of a soft silicone-coated wound contact layer (Mepitel One) with a lipidocolloid wound contact layer (UrgoTul) in the treatment of acute wounds. International Wound Journal, 2018.
5. Patton ML, et al. An open, prospective, randomized pilot investigation evaluating pain with the use of a soft silicone wound contact layer vs bridal veil and staples on split thickness skin grafts as a primary dressing. J Burn Care Res. 2013;34(6):674-681.
6. Bredow J. et al. Evaluation of Absorbent Versus Conventional Wound Dressing. A Randomized Controlled Study in Orthopedic Surgery. Deutsche Arzteblatt Intternational, 2018.
7. Meaume S, et al. A study to compare a new self-adherent soft silicone dressing with a self-adherent polymer dressing in stage II pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2003;49(9):44-51.
8. White R. A multinational survey of the assessment of pain when removing dressings. Wounds UK. 4 (1). 2008.
9. White R. A multinational survey of the assessment of pain when removing dressings. Wounds UK. 4 (1).