There was 'no convincing' medical data to suggest that women who had intact PIP breast implants needed to have them removed, according to a report into the scandal, Herald Scotland reported.
A report by European health officials found that there was no medical or toxicological evidence to justify the removal of intact implants.
An uproar had erupted after it emerged that the French firm Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) had been manufacturing implants using industrial grade silicone intended for use in mattresses.
The company founder, Jean-Claude Mas, was jailed for four years last year for fraud.
Almost 50,000 women in the UK, and some 400,000 worldwide, were suspected to have been affected, after doctors found ruptured implants in an unusually high number of women, according to the report.
The European Commission's Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks had presented its final report into the scandal.
It also found there was no reliable evidence that ruptured PIP implants created a greater health risk than a ruptured silicone breast implant from another manufacturer.
The findings supported a 2012 review by NHS medical director professor Sir Bruce Keogh which concluded the implants were not toxic or carcinogenic.
Though the implants were much more likely to rupture than other breast implants, they were not toxic or carcinogenic if they did rupture - even though they contained industrial grade silicone
Mailonline reported John Wilkinson, director of medical devices at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), as saying while the agency recognised that the criminal PIP episode had been very distressing for women who had had breast implants and he hoped the final European report provided them some reassurance.
He added, the findings of the report supported the scientific conclusions from Professor sir Bruce Keogh's independent expert group report that there was no evidence of a long-term threat to human health from PIP breast implants.