Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2014 | 1 | 4 | 267-270
Article title

Kliniczne znaczenie lubrykacji soczewek kontaktowych

Title variants
The Clinical Relevance of Contact Lens Lubricity
Languages of publication
Physical description
  • Założyciel i dyrektor Centrum Badań Soczewek Kontaktowych, emerytowany profesor w Szkole Optometrii w Johannesburgu i na Uniwersytecie Nowej Południowej Walii w Sydney
  • 1. Dumbleton K, Woods CA, Jones LW, et al. The impact of contemporary contact lenses on contact lens discontinuation. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39(1): 93-99.
  • 2. Rumpakis J. New data on contact lens dropouts: an international perspective. Review of Optometry 2010; 147: 37-42.
  • 3. Fonn D, Situ P, Simpson TL. Hydrogel lens dehydration and subjective comfort and dryness ratings in symptomatic and asymptomatic contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76(10): 700-704.
  • 4. Guillon M, Maissa C. Dry eye symptomatology of soft contact lens wearers and nonwearers. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82(9): 829-834.
  • 5. Chalmers RL, Begley CG. Dryness symptoms among an unselected clinical population with and without contact lens wear. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2006; 29(1): 25-30.
  • 6. Cedarstaff TH, Tomlinson A. A comparative study of tear evaporation rates and water content of soft contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1983; 60(3): 167-174.
  • 7. Pritchard N, Fonn D. Dehydration, lens movement and dryness ratings of hydrogel contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt.
  • 8. Morgan PB, Efron N. In vivo dehydration of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2003; 29(3): 173-176.
  • 9. Subbaraman L, Jones LW. Measuring friction and lubricity of hydrogel contact lenses − A review. Contact Lens Spectrum; special edition 2013 [online:].
  • 10. Malhotra M, Subramanian R, Gahlot P, et al. Textbook in Applied Mechanics. New Delhi: New Age International 1994.
  • 11. Maldonado-Codina C, Efron N. Dynamic wettability of pHEMA-based hydrogel contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2006; 26(4): 408-418.
  • 12. Tighe BJ. A decade of silicone hydrogel development: surface properties, mechanical properties and ocular compatibility. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39(1): 4-12.
  • 13. Spring TF. Reaction to hydrophilic lenses. Med J Aust 1974; 1(12): 449-450.
  • 14. Allansmith MR, Korb DR, Greiner JV, et al. Giant papillary conjunctivitis in contact lens wearers. Am J Ophthalmol 1977; 83(5): 697-708.
  • 15. Dumbleton K. Noninflammatory silicone hydrogel contact lens complications. Eye Cont Lens 2003; 29(suppl. 1): 186-189; discussion: 190-194.
  • 16. Korb DR, Greiner JV, Herman JP, et al. Lid-wiper epitheliopathy and dry-eye symptoms in contact lens wearers. CLAO J 2002; 28(4): 211-216.
  • 17. Pult H, Purslow C, Berry M, et al. Clinical tests for successful contact lens wear: relationship and predictive potential. Optom Vis Sci 2008; 85(10): E924-929.
  • 18. Keir N, Jones L. Wettability and silicone hydrogel lenses: A review. Eye Contact Lens 2013; 39(1): 100-108.
  • 19. Pruitt J, Qiu Y, Thekveli S, et al. Surface characterization of a water gradient silicone hydrogel contact lens (delefilcon A). Invest Ophthal Vis Sci 2012; 53. E-abstract 6107.
  • 20. Sawyer WG. Lubricity in high water content surface gel layers. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89. E-abstract 125089.
  • 21. Brennan NA. Contact lens-based correlates of soft lens wearing comfort. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86. E-abstract 90957.
  • 22. Coles C. Coefficient of friction and contact lens comfort. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89. E-abstract 125603.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.