Hello SueLynn

Welcome to Lens 101

I'm sorry to hear about your lens problems.

It is possible that you have developed some sort of allergy to the silicone hydrogel or it could be a reaction to the lens solutions that you are using. Even if you didn't change solutions when you started with Oasys, it is still possible to develop a reaction to the solutions after some time.

Do they contain a preservative? Many people have problems with these preservatives and switch to a preservative free lens solution system.

I would agree that you would be better to try and stick to the newer silicone hydrogel lenses with their higher oxygen permeability, if possible. These lenses are made from different silicone hydrogel materials, so it may be a case of changing to one of the other silicone hydrogel lenses and see how you get on.

I can't give you any recommendations. I am a long term user of yearly lenses, but switched 2.5 months ago to Biofinity monthly lenses and I find them very comfortable. I use a two step hydrogen peroxide cleaning system, which I think is probably preservative free. I never had any sensitivity to preservatives anyway, though my wife does.

knotlob

Thanks for the warm welcome, Knotlob! I found when I switched from Optifree Replenish to Express, that that was an improvement, but ultimately, I would eventually get the red eyes and goop in the morning anyway. And then I'd have to go back to glasses for a week or 2 before attempting to wear a fresh pair again.
Well, now I'm out of lenses. I think I might try Biofinity and use ClearCare solution and see how it goes. This forum is a wealth of information.

Hello SueLynn

Sounds good!

I've never used Clear Care, but I read an article where an eye doctor was having all sorts of problems with a patient having reactions to a series of contact lenses. He ultimately decided for all new patients, to start them on Clear Care to eliminate this problem and then get to work on the more mechanical issues of fit and lens/eye interaction.

http://beta.sabukat.com/oaa/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RPT2y0pDTdI%3D&tabid=131 &mid=682
Look at Page #8 which is relevant to your situation.

I can't find the article that I was looking for where the eye care professional discusses starting his patient on Clear Care, though I did post it previously on one of my posts here.

knotlob

Hi Sue Lynn. Welcome to Lens 101.

I see you've met Knotlob. He says he's not an eye doctor, but he sure sounds like one.

I don't use it myself, but I've heard a lot of good things about Clear Care solution. I think you can use it knowing that the chances are good that your contacts will be more comfortable to wear once you start using it.

Thank you both, Knotlob and JoeyRC. I read most of the articles at the link and they were very, very interesting and informative! I'm looking forward to using the Clear Care. Hopefully will like Biofinity better than Oasys.

Hi SueLynn, and welcome to Lens 101. I hope you enjoy your time here and find lots of good information and maybe you can even answer some questions yourself. I look forward to reading more from you.

Thanks, ReTina!

I'd like to welcome you to Lens 101 too. Make sure you check out the other sections here in Lens 101. There's one for sunglasses and also a section for eyeglasses if you've ever worn those. I'm sure you'll find plenty to occupy you there.

Thanks, I will when I get a chance. I have newer glasses now, progressive lenses, love 'em.

OK, I'm still waiting until my eyes are totally normal, white, before making an appt with my optometrist. They're getting better with each day, one week in glasses so far, still some goop, crusties in the morning, and in the meantime, I've been reading about the optimal way to care for contact lenses. I realize I've worn Oasys for longer than I should--over 1 month, possibly double. Before August, that hadn't been a problem, but since then, I've had conjunctivitis type symptoms on and off. I haven't ever tried a nonpreservative solution with these lenses. Would that have helped? I used to have very white healthy-looking eyes, also eat very eye-health promoting foods (lots of greens, legumes, nuts/seeds, etc), however, my workplace has had new carpeting/roof this past year and I wonder if the outgassing of these materials have caused problems. I've wondered if possible sensitivity to these have caused problems.
However, I've googled and found lots and lots of people have had problems with Oasys, more than other contact lenses. Sometimes, very serious problems, leading to scarring and vision loss. My daughter, who has used Oasys for a year, now has found out she has developed cysts on her eyes after wearing Oasys. As a mother, I'm outraged about the possibility that we're being experimented on with these contact lens companies. I'm concerned that we're guinea pigs for the newer silicone soft lenses, which I had assumed to be tested adequately, but now wonder if they have been. I've read that people who have been very satisfied with Ciba Night and Day are very dissatisfied with the newer Ciba Air Optix N & D Aqua, which has replaced the former. I would hope that testing for these newer polymers/silicone lenses would have been done extensively before being out there for public use, but I can't help but wonder if that's truly the case. Just musing...

Hi SueLyn

Some people have allergic or adverse reactions to lens solutions containing preservatives, others have no problems. But it sounds as if your eyes may be more sensitive than others, so preservative free solutions may have helped. Everybody is different, but if there are concerns, then Clear Care with the platinum/palladium catalyst to neutralise the peroxide does not contain preservatives and can be used to eliminate that potential problem in any diagnosis.

I am sure Johnson & Johnson and all the other contact lens makers will test their products thoroughly before they are released onto the market. They cannot afford to be sued for negligence/loose their quality reputation and the FDA would have to approve their use in the US anyway. However, everybody is a little different and it is possible for the lenses to be fine with one group of wearers and unsatisfactory with another.

I have been following the O2/Air Optix saga on this forum with interest. It does seem a little strange and naturally the suspicion is that the manufacturers are not being completely open about any differences between the two lenses. But these differences in wearer comfort would certainly not have been foreseen by the makers.

Solvent release from new carpets/fabrics/building materials in renovated or new buildings will always have some potential for adverse effects. Sick building syndrome, etc. But hopefully in developed world areas, most of these problems should now be known about and avoided.

What does your eye specialist say about the cysts on your daughter's eyes? Do they have any diagnosis/opinions as to the cause? It may be unrelated to the silicone hydrogel, although silicone hydrogel materials are relatively new to market, so I guess everybody is still learning about possible side effects. But they do offer significant oxygen permeability benefits over the older standard hydrogel lenses.

knotlob

Thanks for your reply, Knotlob, and I know the companies must test their products first. I was surprised and alarmed when I found out my daughter's eyes were having problems, and she's only 27. She wore Acuvue 2 before Oasys and her eyes never had any problems during those years. She never sleeps with her contacts in and is careful with lens care. I believe her optometrist was puzzled by the cysts, but I'll speak with her again about it. It sounds like something she should see an ophthalmologist about.
I've been trying to play detective with my own eyes, but though I haven't been sensitive to anything before, and don't have any environmental allergies that I know of, I'm aware that anyone could develop sensitivities at some point in their life. Plus there could be changes in my tears/chemistry having recently gone through menopause.
I wouldn't have suspected the lenses themselves except I've read *so many* complaints about Oasys when I googled it, the same conjunctivitis type symptoms I've had since August, and a number of people with much more serious problems than that. I was hard pressed to find many complaints about other lenses, including other Acuvue lenses. It just makes you wonder.

Yes, indeed. There may be a problem in some people wearing some types of silicone hydrogel lenses. I read a paper on the Internet, where an eye doctor was explaining the problems he had had with a client.

Eventually he solved the problem with some substitution exercises.

He switched the client to Clear Care peroxide system to eliminate the possibility of solution preservative allergies/sensitivities.

Then he switched the client to Daily lenses and the eye problems were resolved. Daily lenses are seldom, if ever, silicone hydrogel at present, so going to daily lenses tested indirectly sensitivity to the silicone hydrogel issue.

He said from now on he would immediately switch a patient to Clear Care to eliminate the preservative sensitivity issue and work right away on the mechanical issues of lens fit.

I guess once he had established the patient was OK with daily lenses he would be able to try different silicone hydrogel lenses to see if any were suitable.

And, yes, I think the cysts your daughter has are something that an eye doctor should probably take a look at.

Recently a new eye doctor suggested I switch from Yearly Lenses to Daily Acuvue Johnson & Johnson lenses. When I declined that suggestion, she suggested 2 weekly Acuvue Oasys lenses and then the Biofinity Monthly lenses, Obviously she was not concerned about silicone hydrogel problems with the Oasys lenses (here in Germany).

knotlob

http://www.opticianonline.net/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=3086

Biofinity is better

What's at that site, rfriel?

net
The properties and performance of one of the latest silicone hydrogel (SiH) lenses, Biofinity (CooperVision), was reviewed last month. This highlighted how, as SiH lenses continue to evolve with newer materials and designs, Biofinity offers
a new approach with improvements in comfort, wettability and overall performance relative to some older lens materials and designs.
Until recently, few studies have evaluated Biofinity’s clinical performance in daily wear. Therefore, the purpose of this most recent study was to evaluate the lens’ daily wear performance in existing soft CL wearers, in addition to comparing its clinical performance against another SiH, Air Optix (CIBA Vision).

Method
This was a two-month, single-masked, randomised, bilateral, cross over daily wear evaluation with subjects wearing Biofinity and Air Optix for one month each. The multi-centre study was conducted at seven sites in the UK. Lens details are summarised in Table 1. To prevent bias, subjects were masked to lens type and sponsor and investigators masked to sponsor, although not necessarily lens type since Air Optix incorporates distinctive markings.
Subjects were current CL wearers, although not using either study lens.
Spherical refraction was between -0.50D and -6.00D, with astigmatic correction
1.00D or less. Visual acuity (VA) 6/9 or better was required in each eye. They
had normal eyes, with no evidence of abnormality or disease. Subjects needed
a mobile phone to receive and send text messages during the study.
Subjects were assessed at baseline when details were taken of habitual lens wear (Table 2). They were fitted with a pair of SiHs, with power closest to vertex-corrected spherical spectacle prescription. Lens performance was assessed after 10-15 minutes; a success- Comparative clinical evaluation of two silicone hydrogel lenses for daily wear Guy Whittaker, Karl Aberdeen and John Rogers provide an overview of a comparative evaluation between silicone hydrogel lens erformance and older materials and designs.

TABLE 1
Lens parameters Biofinity Air Optix
Manufacturer CooperVision CIBA Vision
Material, water content comfilcon A, 48% lotrafilcon B, 33%
Dk/t (@-3.00D) 160 138
Surface treatment None Plasma coating
Modulus (MPa) 0.75 1.00
Wetting angle (sessile drop) 30° 60°
Diameter/base curve (mm) 8.60 / 14.0 8.60 / 14.2
Centre thickness (mm) 0.08 0.08
Study sphere powers (D) -0.50 to –6.00D (-0.25D steps)
Recommended replacement period Monthly Monthly (UK)

TABLE 2
Summary of clinical assessments
Grading Fitting and dispense
Follow-ups
Monoc. HCDVA with best vision sphere Snellen to nearest letter X X
Subjective visual quality 0-100 scale X X
Subjective comfort 0-10 scale X X
Comfort by SMS text message to subjects mobile phone during 1 month wear
0-10 scale 4 time-points (8am, 12pm, 4pm & 8pm) on 4 days (3, 7, 13 & 27)
Symptoms (dryness, discomfort, foreign body sensation)
0 – 3 scale (0=none, 3 = severe) X

Preference Study vs habitual lens;
study 1 vs study 2 X
Lens handling 0-10 scale X
Deposits: White spot deposits Film deposits Yes/no
0-4 scale X
PLTF assessment (Keeler Tearscope Plus):
Lipid layer
Non-invasive tear break-up time
0-4 scale
Seconds
X
Lens fit:
Lens Centration
Tightness on push-up
Overall fit acceptance
Post-blink movement
Centred, slightly or
substantially decentred
%
0-4 scale
0-4
X X
Slit-lamp examination:
Limbal & bulbar hyperaemia
Corneal fluorescein staining
Conjunctival lissamine green staining
Conjunctival lens indentation
0-4 CCLRU scale
NEI grading
0-4 CCLRU scale
0-4 scale
- X
Contact Lens Monthly
24 | Optician | 02.05.08 opticianonline.net

Subjects were issued with Opti-Free Express (Alcon) MPDS, along with instructions on text messaging and recording lens comfort. Lenses were worn daily until the next follow-up appointment, and for a minimum of four hours prior to any appointments, which were two and four weeks after dispensing. The second pair of lenses was issued at the one-month follow-up and the process repeated. Lenses were changed when subjects came in for their follow-up visit; if other replacements were required, only the relevant lens was replaced.
Subjects were sent an SMS text message on four separate days after each
dispensing at four time-points throughout the day (Table 2), asking them to grade comfort (0-10 scale). The first SMS of each day asked for lens insertion
time; the last asked when lenses became uncomfortable. From insertion
time and when lenses became uncomfortable, comfortable wearing time was
calculated. Comfort responses returned within 1.5 hours of being sent were
included in the analysis.
Results
A total of 51 subjects were enrolled; mean age was 33.5 years and 88 per
cent were female. Mean high contrast VA with spectacles was -0.02 logMAR
(=6/6); mean spherical refraction was -3.02DS and cylinder -0.35DC. Two
subjects were discontinued; one with Air Optix after dispensing due to
unacceptable comfort and one after two weeks with Biofinity due to lens
intolerance.
Habitual contact lenses
A majority of subjects (60 per cent) were existing wearers of mid or high water
hydrogels; the remainder wore SiHs. The most common previous lens types were Proclear (18 per cent), PureVision and Acuvue Advance (both 16 per cent). All lenses were frequently replaced, with the most popular being monthly (59 per cent), followed by daily (24 per cent). Mean habitual lens power was -2.91D.
Wearing time Mean wearing times (WTs) were 13.7 and 13.6 hours for Biofinity and Air Optix respectively, compared to 12.7 hours with habitual lenses. Mean
comfortable WTs were within 1.5 hours of mean WT (12.4 hours with Biofinity and 11.9 hours with Air Optix, at one month); these differences were not statistically significant.
However, when comfortable WT was assessed using SMS results, it was longer for Biofinity on day seven (11.0 vs 8.9 hours, P=0.01).
Comfort
Biofinity was rated more comfortable than Air Optix at five of the 16 time points graded with SMS (Figure 1), with differences between lens types (P<0.0001) and time of day (P<0.0001). End-of-day comfort assessment showed most differences, in particular on days seven, 13 and 27. On day seven, mean comfort scores at 8pm were 8.5 and 8.0 for Biofinity and Air Optix respectively (P=0.04). Comfortable WT was also longer with Biofinity on this day (11.0 vs 8.9, P=0.01). Mean comfort scores at both follow-up visits were also higher with Biofinity (8.7 vs 8.4 at one month), although this was not statistically significant.
For SMS comfort data, responses were received from 74 per cent of the 1,584
text messages, although the proportion of subjects responding varied depending
on time of day and stage of the study. On Day three, response rate was 63 per cent with Biofinity subjects and 73 per cent with Air Optix subjects at 8am; this increased at 8pm to 80 per cent and 78 per cent respectively. On Day 27, response rates at 8am were 69 per cent and 66 per cent for Biofinity and Air Optix respectively, and 73 per cent and 72 per cent at 8pm. Subjective symptoms
After one month there was more ‘discomfort’, ‘redness’ and ‘blurred vision’ with Air Optix. Discomfort was reported with 15 per cent of Air Optix eyes compared with 8 per cent for Biofinity (P=0.01); mild redness affected 7 per cent Air Optix eyes compared with 1 per cent Biofinity (P=0.03); blurred vision affected 16 per
cent Air Optix eyes compared with 8 per cent Biofinity (P= 0.05).

Vision performance
Visual performance was similar with the two lenses. Mean VA with Biofinity was significantly higher than with Air Optix; at the one-month visit, there was a difference of two letters in mean logMAR VAs (0.00 and +0.04 for Biofinity and Air Optix respectively). However, there was a significant differ-

Average comfort (0-10)
Summary of comfort via SMS text messaging
6
9
8
7
10
Day 3 Day 7 Day 13 Day 27
* *
* *
*
*
08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00
Biofinity Air Optix * p<0.05
Subjective vision quality (0-100)
2 weeks 1 month
Subjective vision quality at 2 weeks and at 1 month
Biofinity Air Optix
0
20
90
80
60
40
10
70
50
30
100
p = 0.02 p = 0.038
Contact Lens Monthly
26 | Optician | 02.05.08 opticianonline.net
ence in over-refraction between lenses, where Air Optix wearers needed more
minus (mean over-refraction -0.12D vs 0.0D with Biofinity). With the over- refraction in place, there were no differences in VA and normalised VA was within one letter of baseline for both SiHs. Subjective vision quality was graded significantly better with Biofinity at both follow-up visits
Lens fit and handling With both lenses, all fits were judged acceptable at the first trial fit and with no significant differences between them. One subject showed excessive, superior decentration with Air Optix at both follow-up visits. The only difference in fit between lenses was noted at two weeks; Air Optix showed less
post-blink movement than Biofinity (2.1 v. 2.3, where 2=optimum, P=0.01),
although clinically this difference is minimal. There were no significant
differences in subjects’ assessment of handleability.
Tear film assessment and deposition
There were no significant differences in pre-lens tear film assessment with
Biofinity and Air Optix (non-invasive break-up time or lipid layer) at either
follow-up visit. Mean break-up times were close to 10 seconds, which is relatively long compared with the normal inter-blink period. After two weeks, 15 per cent of both lens types showed some white spot deposits. The mean number of spot deposits was small (0.36 for Biofinity and 0.45 for Air Optix). The proportion
of Biofinity lenses with spot deposits did not increase after one month (Air
Optix increased to 19 per cent) and means were still small (0.43 and 0.97
respectively). Around a third of the lenses showed film deposits, although
means were again small (0.45 and 0.62 respectively on a 0-4 scale at one
month). This lipid film, which tends to be more prevalent in SiH materials,
can be helped by ensuring a simple rub and rinse step is implemented.
Ocular physiology After one month, reductions in limbal and bulbar hyperaemia and vascularisation were noted with both lenses compared with habitual lenses. There was also a reduction in palpebral hyperaemia with Biofinity. At the one- month visit, limbal and bulbar hyperaemia were significantly greater with Air
Optix than Biofinity (Figure 3); limbal hyperaemia was noted in 53 Air Optix
lens wearing eyes compared with 40 Biofinity eyes. After one month there
was a reduction in total corneal staining with both SiHs compared with habitual lenses, in particular, inferior corneal staining. There were two significant differences in slit-lamp findings at the two week visit. Central corneal staining
was greater with Air Optix, where six eyes (five subjects) showed staining
compared to none with Biofinity (0.07 vs 0.00, P=0.02). Conjunctival lens
edge indentation was also greater with Air Optix (0.43 vs 0.25, P=0.02); 34
Air Optix eyes showed some conjunctival indentation compared with 21
Biofinity eyes.

Lens preference
Subjects expressed a preference for Biofinity compared to their habitual lenses (57 per cent at two weeks, P=0.002, with 19 per cent no preference). There was no preference for Air Optix compared to habitual lenses (50 per cent vs 42 per cent). At the final visit, more subjects expressed a preference for Biofinity compared to Air Optix (50 per cent vs 35 per cent), although this was not statistically significant.

Discussion
The study demonstrated that Biofinity performed well with existing contact lens wearers for daily wear, and there were significant differences in performance
between the two lenses, favouring Biofinity, in particular for comfort, symptoms and ocular physiology. Biofinity tended to give better comfort, especially end of day. Although differences were not evident at follow-up visits, it was convincingly shown from text message results, illustrating the value of this method of data collection.
The apparent contradictory findings in comfort between visit and SMS results
could be explained by the fact that differences in comfort were not evident
until later in the day, whereas follow-up visits were typically conducted after less
than six hours wear. Differences in comfort were mirrored with symptoms; with Air Optix, more subjects reported discomfort at one month and there was a greater tendency for end-of-day comfort reduction. The reason for comfort differences is not obvious. Possible clues may lie in greater levels of conjunctival indentation and central corneal staining with Air Optix, which may in part be due to lotrafilcon B’s higher modulus. Several studies have also noted superior comfort with Biofinity compared with lotrafilcon A lenses, however, only one study to date has compared the comfort between Biofinity and lotrafilcon B lenses.2 In
this parallel group study, Brennan noted higher average comfort with Biofinity,
although this was not statistically significant.
Text messaging was a useful addition to normal comfort data collection at follow- up visits with responses to three quarters of the SMS sent. It provided insights into the decline in comfort during the day, and demonstrated a significant difference in comfort performance that was only evident

0
1
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
1.2
p = 0.0006
p = 0.03
02.05.08 | Optician | 27

Contact Lens Monthly
opticianonline.net with this method of assessments. Not surprisingly, SMS response rates varied depending on time of day and stage of the study, being higher in evenings and earlier on in the study. Other methods have been used to assess CL comfort between visits, such as using handwritten diaries and emails using a BlackBerry device. Paper diaries have caused concerns with accuracy since it is not known if assessments are rated at the correct times, whereas compliance with electronic diaries has been shown to be high.3 A recent study4 evaluated text messaging for collecting subjective responses, where subjects found reporting comfort via SMS easier than with paper diaries, in particular when recording data at a specific time period. Three quarters of subjects responded within 10 minutes and there was a reduction in retrospective data completion (‘cheating’). Text messaging and email means subjects can only answer once prompted, and response time is recorded, although texting has additional advantages over email. A higher response rate (97 per cent) than in the current study was reported with BlackBerrys, although the method of calculation has not yet been published, so a direct comparison is not possible. Although Biofinity showed better visual performance than Air Optix, this appears to be back-vertex power-related rather than optical quality since differences were not evident with spherical over-refraction. This suggests Air Optix may incorporate less minus power than Biofinity, and since VA differences were present at dispensing it cannot be due to a CL-induced refraction change. Both single base curve lenses proved versatile since they all successfully fitted a wide range of eyes with similar
fitting characteristics between lenses. This contrasts with one of the first
generation silicone hydrogel, Night & Day, which with its relatively high
modulus requires two base curves for optimal fitting. Slit lamp findings were consistently graded lower (in other words, better) at the final visit compared to baseline. Most of these can be explained by being refitted with high oxygen transmissibility lenses. The few differences between lenses were in favour of Biofinity, although these should be regarded with caution since they were not consistent between two follow-up visits. The reduction in limbal and bulbar hyperaemia was in no doubt due to the increase, or most, in lens’ oxygen transmissibility. This effect has been noted by many studies evaluating the effect of refitting with SiHs. Reductions in corneal staining were most commonly seen inferiorly and temporally. One likely explanation with former conventional hydrogel wearers is a reduction in desiccation staining with the SiH. For those existing SiH wearers, it is possible that refitting with a lower modulus, highly
wettable materials such as comfilcon A combines to reduce corneal insult. The
greater levels of hyperaemia seen with Air Optix were unexpected; the two
lenses have similar oxygen transmissibilities but the differences could be
related to other significant differences, that is central corneal staining and
conjunctival indentation. Taken with the reduced comfort levels noted earlier,
lotrafilcon B’s greater modulus could lead to greater mechanical pressure and
subsequent ocular insult and discomfort in some wearers, although this
explanation would be more convincing if differences in slit lamp findings had
been consistent between visits.

Conclusions
This study shows that Biofinity lenses performed well with regards to clinical performance when refitting existing CL wearers for DW. When comparing the
lens with another SiH, both performed well, although Biofinity gave better
comfort performance than Air Optix, particularly later in the day, along with
fewer symptoms of discomfort and blurred vision. The study also demonstrated
the benefit of SMS text messaging as an way of assessing lens comfort performance. Biofinity led to fewer slit lamp findings than habitual lenses for
limbal hyperaemia, bulbar hyperaemia and corneal staining during the month,
in addition to less limbal and bulbar hyperaemia than with Air Optix. 􀁍

References
1 Whittaker G. Biofinity silicone hydrogels.
Optician, 2008; April 4.
2 Brennan N, Coles C and Ang J. An evaluation
of silicone hydrogel lenses worn on a daily wear
basis. Clin Exp Optom, 2006; Jan 89(1): 18-25.
3 Stone A, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE,
Hufford MR. Patient non-compliance with paper
diaries. BMJ, 2002; 324: 1193-1194.
4 Morgan P, Maldonado-Codina, Chatterjee N,
Moody K. Elicitation of subjective responses via
SMS (text) messaging in contact lens clinical
trials. Poster presentation, AAO Conference
October 2007.
5 Woods C, German T, Dong G, Fonn D. The
assessment of contact lens symptomology using
wireless hand-held communication devices. AAO
Conference 2006.
6 Dumbleton KA, Chalmers RL, McNally J, Bayer
S, Fonn D. Effect of lens base curve on subjective
comfort and assessment of fit with silicone
hydrogel continuous wear contact lenses. Optom
Vis Sci, 2002; 79: 633-7.
7 Maldonado-Codina C, Morgan PB, Schnider
CM, Efron N. Short-term physiologic response
in neophyte subjects fitted with hydrogel and
silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci,
2004; Dec 81(12): 911-21.
􀁍􀀁Guy Whittaker is global category director of silicone hydrogel products at CooperVision

You asked for it, Droopy!

I checked out that website, and apparently April 17 is the Big Day for the 2010 Optician Awards. "The Optician Awards is the most prestigious event in the Optician calendar. Firmly established as the biggest and best awards for the profession an opportunity for people throughout optics to celebrate excellence."

Mark your calendars now.

what does this have to do with the article that says air optix is crap and biofinity is the saviour for CL wearers.......J/K ITS all about the modulus, dK/t, h2o content, wettability angle and no surface treatments. i bow down to biofnity and worship the lens,,, c'mon J/K LOL

I looked up that link you posted and it came up as a PDF file. Those make me nervous. Usually they're very long and involved and can take a long time to load, if they load at all. Good thing you copied and pasted the article above, apparently in its entirety.

I suspect ReTina just went to opticianonline.net site and found the article about the Optician Awards there. Some of us are easily distract--Squirrel!

Attached Images

dug.jpg (48.9 KB, 7 views)

Ha ha. Disney reference!