Contact Lens & Anterior Eye
Volume 30, Issue 1 , Pages 5-10 , March 2007

Use of silicone hydrogel material for daily wear

References 

  1. Schein OD, Glynn RJ, Poggio EC, et al. The relative risk of ulcerative keratitis among users of daily wear and extended wear soft contact lenses. N Engl J Med. 1989;321(12):773–778
  2. Poggio EC, Glynn RJ, Schein OD, et al. The incidence of ulcerative keratitis among users of daily wear and extended wear soft contact lenses. N Engl J Med. 1989;321(12):739–783
  3. Holden BA, Mertz GW, McNally JJ. Corneal swelling response to contact lenses worn under extended wear conditions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1983;24(2):218–226
  4. Holden BA, Mertz GW. Critical oxygen levels to avoid corneal edema for daily and extended wear contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1984;25:1161–1167
  5. Guillon M, Ayliffe W, Gobbé M, Mahalingham , Day A. Case report: silicone hydrogel microbial keratitis. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81(12S):
  6. Syam P, Hussain B, et al. Mixed infection (Pseudomonas and coagulase negative staphylococci) microbial keratitis associated with extended wear silicone hydrogel contact lens. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(4):579
  7. Whiting MA, Raynor MK, et al. Continuous wear silicone hydrogel contact lenses and microbial keratitis. Eye. 2004;
  8. Holden BA, Sweeney DF, et al. Microbial keratitis and vision loss with contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29(1 Suppl):S131–S134[Discussion S143-134, S192-134]
  9. Lee KY, Lim L. Pseudomonas keratitis associated with continuous wear silicone-hydrogel soft contact lens: a case report. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29(4):255–257
  10. Lim L, Loughnan MS, et al. Microbial keratitis associated with extended wear of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(3):355–357
  11. Stapleton F, Edwards K, et al. The incidence of contact lens related microbial keratitis in Australia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005 [ARVO abstract #5025].
  12. Morgan PB, Efron N, et al. Incidence of keratitis of varying severity among contact lens wearers. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(4):430–436
  13. Guillon M. Basic contact lens fitting. In:  Ruben M,  Guillon M editor. Contact lens practice. London: Chapman and Hall; 1994;p. 865–876[Chapter 27]
  14. Tighe BJ. Silicone hydrogel materials—how do they work?. In:  Sweeney D editors. Silicone hydrogel: the rebirth of extended wear contact lenses. London: Butterworth; 2000;p. 1–21[Chapter 1]
  15. Guillon M, Maissa C. Tear exchange—does it matter?. In:  Sweeney D editors. Silicone hydrogel: the rebirth of extended wear. London: Butterworth; 2000;p. 78–89[Chapter 4]
  16. Fonn D, Pritchard N, et al. Factors affecting the success of silicone hydrogels. In:  Sweeney D editors. Silicone hydrogels: the rebirth of continuous wear contact lenses. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2000;p. 214–234
  17. Jones L, May C, et al. In vitro evaluation of the dehydration characteristics of silicone-hydrogel and conventional hydrogel contact lens materials. Contact Lens Ant Eye. 2002;25:147–156
  18. Morgan PB, Efron N. In vivo dehydration of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29(3):173–176
  19. Dumbleton K, Keir N, et al. Redness, dryness and comfort following refitting long term low Dk hydrogel wearers with silicone hydrogels. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81(12s):31
  20. Morgan PB, Efron M. Trend in UK contact lens prescribing 2004. Optician. 2004;227(5950):16–17
  21. Morgan PB. International contact lens prescribing in 2003. Contact Lens Spectrum. 2004;19(1):34–37
  22. Thomas J. A “big picture” view of contact lenses. Optom Manage. 2003;
  23. Guillon M, McGrogan L, Maissa C. Hydrogel pre lens tear film characteristics. Optom Vis Sci. 1997;12S:16
  24. Malet F, Schnider CM. Influence of replacement schedule and care regimen on patient comfort and satisfaction with daily wear frequent-replacement contact lenses. CLAO J. 2002;28(3):124–127
  25. Jones L, Franklin V, Evans K, Sariri R, Tighe B. Spoilation and clinical performance of monthly vs. three monthly Group II disposable contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 1996;73(1):16–21
  26. Pritchard N, Fonn D, Weed K. Ocular and subjective responses to frequent replacement of daily wear soft contact lenses. CLAO J. 1996;22(1):53–59
  27. Nason RJ, Boshnick EL, Cannon WM, Dubow BW, Freeman MI, Kame RT, et al. Multisite comparison of contact lens modalities. Daily disposable wear vs. conventional daily wear in successful contact lens wearers. J Am Optom Assoc. 1994;65(11):774–780
  28. Bleshoy H, Guillon M, Shah D. Influence of contact lens material surface characteristics on replacement frequency. ICLC. 1994;21:82–95
  29. Guillon M, Allary JC, Guillon JP, Osborn GN. Clinical management of regular replacement frequency. ICLC. 1992;19(5/6):104–120
  30. Steffen R, Schnider C. A next generation silicone hydrogel lens for daily wear. Part 1. Material properties. Optician. 2004;227(5954):23–25
  31. Steffen R, McCabe K. Finding the comfort zone. Contact Lens Spectrum 2004.
  32. Vanderlaan D, Turner D, et al. Soft contact lenses. US Patent 0,107,324 (2002), to Johnson & Johnson.
  33. Maiden A, Vanderlaan D, et al. Hydrogel with internal wetting agent. US Patent 6,367,929 (2002), to Johnson & Johnson Vision Care.
  34. McCabe K, Molock F, et al. Biomedical devices containing internal wetting agents. US Patent 0,162,862 (2003), to Johnson & Johnson.
  35. McCabe K, Molock F, et al. Biomedical devices containing internal wetting agents. US Patent 0,125,498 (2003), to Johnson & Johnson.
  36. Ross G, Nasso M, Franklin V, Lydon F, Tighe B. Silicone hydrogels: trends in products and properties. In: BCLA annual conference. 2005;
  37. Guillon JP, Guillon M. The role of tears in contact lens performance and its measurement. In:  Ruben M,  Guillon M editor. Contact lens practice. London: Chapman and Hall; 1994;p. 453–483[Chapter 21]
  38. Maissa C, Guillon M, Cockshott N, et al. Tear lipid characteristics and evaporation rate. Ocular Surf. 2005;3(1):S89
  39. Guillon M, Maissa C, Styles E. Relationship between pre ocular tear film structure and stability. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1998;438:401–405
  40. Fonn D, Dumbleton K. Dryness and discomfort with silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29(1):S101–S104
  41. Nairn J, Jiang T. Measurement of the friction and lubricity properties of contact lenses. In: Proceedings of the 53rd annual technical conference. 1995;
  42. Forster H, Fisher J. The influence of continuous sliding and subsequent surface wear on the friction of articular cartilage. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H. 1999;213:329–345
  43. Ateshian G. A theoretical formulation for boundary friction in articular cartilage. J Biomech Eng. 1997;119:81–86
  44. Williams P, Powel G, LaBerge M. Sliding friction analysis of phosphatidylcholine as a boundary lubricant for articular cartilage. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H. 1993;207:59–66
  45. Pickard J, Fisher J, Ingham E, Egan J. Investigation into the effects of proteins and lipids on the frictional properties of articular cartilage. Biomaterials. 1998;19:1807–1812
  46. Swann D, Radin E. The molecular basis of articular lubrication. J Biol Chem. 1972;247:8069
  47. Little T, Freeman M, Swanson S. Experiments on friction in the human hip joint. In:  Wright V editors. Lubrication and wear. London: Sector; 1969;p. 110–114
  48. Hills B, Butler B. Surfactants identified in synovial fluid and their ability to act as boundary lubricants. Ann Rheum Dis. 1984;43:641–648
  49. Tighe B. Silicone hydrogels: structure, properties and behaviour. In:  Sweeney D editors. Silicone hydrogels: continuous wear contact lenses. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2004;p. 1–27

PII: S1367-0484(06)00133-0

doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2006.09.008

Contact Lens & Anterior Eye
Volume 30, Issue 1 , Pages 5-10 , March 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution