PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
Journal
2015 | 2 | 2 | 148-153
Article title

Powierzchnia soczewek kontaktowych a bezpieczeństwo i komfort użytkowania

Authors
Content
Title variants
EN
The surface of contact lenses and the safety and comfort of use
Languages of publication
PL
Abstracts
EN
Contact lenses are becoming more popular method of correction and more specialists choose this solution for their patients. However, despite advances in technology we still have to deal with dropouts. The most popular reasons for its discomfort. Technology of lens surface is really important – lubrication and wettability cooperate with comfort.
PL
Soczewki kontaktowe są coraz popularniejszą metodą korekcji i coraz więcej specjalistów sięga po takie rozwiązanie dla swoich pacjentów. Mimo postępu technologicznego cały czas mamy jednak do czynienia z porzuceniami soczewek kontaktowych. Przyczyna, która jest wskazywana jako najważniejsza, to dyskomfort. Badania jednoznacznie pokazują, że komfort użytkowania soczewek jest związany z ich powierzchnią – powierzchnie zmodyfikowane, o dużym współczynniku lubrykacji dają dużo lepsze efekty. Co więcej, sama powierzchnia soczewek jest odpowiedzialna za gromadzenie się osadów, a to ma już bezpośredni wpływ na bezpieczeństwo.
Discipline
Publisher
Journal
Year
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
148-153
Physical description
References
  • 1. Nichols JJ. Contact Lenses 2008. Contact Lens Spectrum 2009; 24: 24-32.
  • 2. Young G, Veys J, Pritchard N, et al. A multi-centre study of lapsed contact lens wearers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2002; 22(6): 516-527.
  • 3. Bontempo AR, Rapp J. Protein and lipid deposition onto hydrophilic contact lenses in vivo. CLAO J 2001; 27(2): 75-80.
  • 4. Rumpakis J. New data on contact lens dropouts: An international perspective. Review of Optometry 2010 [online: http:// www.revoptom.com/content/d/contact_lenses_and_solutions/c/18929] (dostęp: 15.01.2010).
  • 5. 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.
  • 6. 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.
  • 7. Nichols JJ, Jones L, Nelson JD, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Introduction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013 October; 54: TFOS1-TFOS6 [doi:10.1167/iovs.13-13195].
  • 8. Nichols JJ, Willcox MDP, Bron AJ, et al. The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: Executive Summary. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013 October; 54: TFOS7-TFOS13 [doi:10.1167/iovs.13-13212].
  • 9. Morgan PB, Woods CA, Tranoudis IG, et al. International contact lens prescribing in 2011. Contact Lens Spectrum 2012; 27(1): 26-31.
  • 10. Pritchard N, Fonn D. Dehydration, lens movement and dryness ratings of hydrogel contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1995; 15(4): 281-286.
  • 11. Zhao Z, Carnt NA, Aliwarga Y, et al. Care regimen and lens material influence on silicone hydrogel contact lens deposition. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86(3): 251-259.
  • 12. Tighe B. Silicone hydrogels: Structure, properties and behaviour. In: Silicone Hydrogels: Continuous Wear Contact Lenses. Sweeney D (ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford 2004: 1-27.
  • 13. Panaser A, Tighe BJ. Function of lipids – their fate in contact lens wear: an interpretive review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2012; 35(3): 100-111.
  • 14. Dogru M, Ward SK, Wakamatsu T, et al. The effects of 2 week senofilcon-A silicone hydrogel contact lens daily wear on tear functions and ocular surface health status. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2011; 34(2): 77-82.
  • 15. Nash W, Gabriel M, Mowrey-Mckee M. A comparison of various silicone hydrogel lenses; lipid and protein deposition as a result of daily wear. Optom Vis Sci 2010; 87(e-abstract: 105110).
  • 16. 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.
  • 17. Sawyer WG. Lubricity in high water content surface gel layers. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89. E-abstract 125089.
  • 18. Berry M, Pult H, Purslow C, et al. Mucins and ocular signs in symptomatic and asymptomatic contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci 2008; 85(10): E930-938.
  • 19. 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.
  • 20. Donshik PC. Contact lens chemistry and giant papillary conjunctivitis. Eye Contact Lens 2003; 29(1 supl.): S37-9; dis.: S57-9, S192-4.
  • 21. 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.
  • 22. 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.
Document Type
article
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.psjd-82fb50c3-2552-4092-bfaf-444f60ffe3a9
Identifiers
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.