What's at that site, rfriel? I'm too lazy to copy and paste the link.

net
The properties and
performance of one of the
latest silicone hydrogel
(SiH) lenses, Biofinity
(CooperVision), was
reviewed last month.1
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 performance 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
ful fit was greater than Grade 2 overall
fit acceptance and VA 6/9 or better.
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 highwater
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-
Figure 1
Summary of
comfort via
SMS text
messaging
Figure 2
Subjective
vision quality
at 2 weeks
and 1 month
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
(Figure 2).
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 twoweek
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
Figure 3 Limbal and
bulbar hyperaemia at
baseline and 1 month
Grading of Hyperaemia (0-4)
Baseline 1 month Baseline 1 month
Limbal hyperaemia Bulbar hyperaemia
Habitual Biofinity Air Optix
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.5
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.6
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,
for most, in lens’ oxygen transmissibility.
This effect has been noted by many
studies evaluating the effect of refitting
with SiHs.7
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

Woah.

So, like, what does all that mean?

its a pdf file, i provided the URL, but somebody got lazy and didnt want to follow it so i copied and pasted the whole article.

Wow. Well, there's a lot of technobabble in this article. What is it that you want me to learn from this article rfriel?

In your original posting you just put up a link with the title "Biofinity is Better." There must have been something in this PDF file that convinced you of that. What might that be? Was it the PLTF Assessment? The non-invasive tear break-up time? Or maybe it was the conclusion that "Biofinity led to fewer slit lamp findings than habitual lenses for limbal hyperaemia, bulbar hyperaemia and corneal staining"?

yes, very good, its not just slit lamp finding for were better than habitual lens, but better than Air optics aqua also, Air optix is a leading 2nd SiHy lens that is shown to be inferior to the 3rd Gen SiHy biofinity, so yes, you are on the right track to understanding the importance of the article that "Biofinity, truely is better",

i got 6 trial lens from walmart OD, one of the lens is just messed up, its blurry near vision but not far, biofinity doesnt have multifocal, so there isnt a problem with that mix up, but i put the lens on either eye and its blurry near, do i dumped the lens and opened another one. the lens seems to get easier to insert/remove/handle as time goes on, at first, right out of blister pack the modulus seemed lower than oasys, but now after 5 days, the modulus of biofinity seems about equal to oasys, even though clinical lab reports show modulus slightly higher for biofinity, which i would not agree with at this point.
Edit/Delete Message

Hi rfriel, thanks for your report. I'm sorry the contacts aren't satisfactory. When you say "modulus," you mean "stiffness" right? So let me see if I've got this straight. A contact lens with a low modulus would be . . . more flexible and "floppy" right? Or is it the other way around?

correct, low modulus is less stiff, better for eye, things to watch for in contact lens, Dk/t, modulus, wetting angle, surface treatment, H2O %, edge effects, rounded or tapered, these are all very important when choosing a lens

Thanks for explaining all that rfriel. Let me see if I got this straight. Low modulus = floppy lens. High modulus = rigid lens, right? How is modulus measured? What would be a "medium" modulus?

measured as material deformation, stress/strain, in MPa, Mega Pascals, units of force/unit area, I think, without going back to my mechanics of materials book. anyone else can correct this if needed.

Yikes! This is sounding less and less like a "101" site all the time.

Obviously you know quite a bit about contact lenses, rfriel. There may be some opticians who are reading this forum, but do you think the average Lens 101 reader will be familiar with terms such as "Mega Pascals"?

Maybe it's just me. Jurassic Mark asked what a "medium" modulus would be, and I, for one, still don't know. Maybe I'm just dumb as a brick.

with google, no one is dumb, google makes everyone smart, except in china

Oh, I don't know. If I had to Google every bit of optical lingo in that article that I didn't understand, I'd have to start wearing bifocal contacts before I was done.

Do you understand what "limbal hyperaemia" is, `cause I don't and I'll wager that most of the people reading this forum don't know either. In this world of instant coffee, microwave ovens and 1-minute reviews, people in general don't want to take the time to look up all the medical jive, they just want the bottom line. Hence the name "Lens 101" as in "introductory course."

Am I right, people? That's how I feel, anyway.

Yes, I would agree. This forum is aimed at the layman contact lens wearer, not Professional Eye Specialists. It is better if the poster can give the link and then provide a summary of the salient points in simple everyday language (where this is possible). If someone wants to read the more esoteric literature, then the link is there for them.

knotlob

A writer effectively communicates when readers are able to comprehend and understand what's written. An individual reader might, occasionally have to look up the meaning of a word. The writer is doing a poor job if the majority of readers don't understand what's written.

A writer has done a poor job if many readers have to look up the meanings of words. You should be writing for your audience.

Cut and pasting an entire article may violate copyright. A poster who wants to be helpful would summarize the article, using language the readers can comprehend.

Yes, exactly. Give a link and a summary. I can copy and paste some article from a professional eye care website and only understand enough to give me a clue that it might have something to do with the question posted. I have a feeling that rfriel won't summarize the article that he or she copied and pasted because he or she doesn't understand it either.

Right you are, Lurker2010. I couldn't agree more.

Not to mention the fact that the posted article does not have the correct margins, so it takes up a lot
more
vertical
space
than
necessary.

Apparently rfriel wasn't too lazy to copy and paste an entire article . . .

Shame on you, Droopy.

Looks like someone at least scanned the article for techno-babble.

Woah! Translation, please!

I noticed that in this article that some sentences seem incomplete. For example, I found "Lens performance was assessed after 10-15 minutes; a success-" and right at the end "However, there was a significant differ-"

Has anyone gotten any important information from this copied and pasted article? Has anyone read the whole thing from start to finish?

When I got my new prescription for contacts, the first one my doctor gave me to try out was Biofinity 30 days. I really liked it because of the awesome optics but I soon realized that it was really drying out my eyes. Anytime I took a nap on them, I would wake up with really uncomfortable eyes. So I went to the doc again to talk to him about this issue. He recommended that I try out the 2 weeks instead of 30 days because it's thinner so pulls in less water from the eyes, thus keeping them "wet". I tried that for a while and at first it was amazing. It was so easy to put on and when it was on my hand I could barely see it. But the problem with the dry eyes stayed but to a lesser extent. So recently I picked up the Air Optix from Ciba vision to see if it is any better. And I gotta say, comfort wise it's much better. I took a nap in them and I woke up without any discomfort in my eyes. I wanted to sleep on them one night but decided against it. Maybe I should try it to see if it's okay.

One thing I should mention even though I have no tangible proof that there is any validity to I will say. I think Biofinity might have better optics than both the 2 weeks version and the Air Optix lens. But this may be just in my head.

I guess that's what you get for being lazy, Droopy.

Speaking of lazy--did anybody here read that entire article from beginning to end?

Me neither. So why did rfriel post it?

Hello JayZ and welcome.

What was the name of the 2 week lenses you tried? Is it Biomedics 2, because otherwise it sounds like you had both a Monthly and a Two Week Version of the Biofinity Lens. I've never seen a 2 week Biofinity Lens for sale anywhere, nor seen it mentioned on the Internet.

Glad you found comfort in the Air Optix lenses.

knotlob

I think it's Biomedics 55. Made by the same company so my doctor referred to them as Biofinity I guess. They were pretty good. I think you can try out samples.

Hope that helps.

OK JayZ

The Biomedics 55 are made of Ocufilcon D whereas the Biofinity lenses are made of Comfilcon A. The Biofinity lenses are about 6.5 times more oxygen breathable than the Biomedics 55. Let us all know how you get on please.

knotlob

Welcome JayZ. I'm glad that Air Optix were so comfortable for you after wearing contacts that had been so uncomfortable before. That was an interesting little factoid that thinner lenses don't feel as dry as the thicker ones.

Before you sleep in them, though, it's best to ask your eye doctor first. I don't see why it would be a problem, but I'm not a doctor. Just makes sure you have the "all clear" first. Enjoy those contacts!

Holy Crap!

That's a very good question. I will be sure to ask my Doctor next time I see him. He specifically told me that it was Biofinity, wth? I just kinda assumed there weren't much difference. I am really sorry to mislead you guys. I will find out what they really were. Sorry.

Not to worry. The Air Optix that you like have also very good oxygen permeability.

Sometimes it is difficult to pick up all the information given out when visiting the doctor or optician, especially if not familiar with the technical terms.

knotlob

Yes, indeed. Sometimes too, your doctor talks so fast that you don't get a chance to catch everything.

Have fun with your new contacts, JayZ.

Don't worry about it. You didn't purposely mislead. I agree that a visit to your doctor can be rather confusing, and when someone asks "what did the doctor say" it can be a hard question to answer.

Keep is posted, okay, JayZ?

Have you seen your eye doctor again yet, JayZ? What's the latest?

I should have updated this before. Anyway, after wearing the AirOptix lens for a while, I started getting comfortable and went into my doctor's office to pick up my 1 yr supply. Apparently, the doctor didn't leave AirOptix in my file but left Biofinity instead. He probably just didn't have time to switch them and he wasn't there that day so I could ask him in person. I was a little disappointed then I realized a few key things. He did recommend the Biofinity to me after carefully considering everything he learned about me. And he kept insisting that first time I try out the lens I will be most critical of it. So since I started my trials with Biofinity, the results have been a little biased. Not only was I for the first time ever keeping the contact lens in my eyes for a very long period of time but also my prescription has changed which means I needed some time to get over that hurdle. It wasn't fair for me to put the blame of uneasiness to my contact lens (Biofinity at first).

Since I still had my biofinity lenses from wearing them only two weeks, I decided to put them on again just to try it. It felt so much lighter than the AirOptix. And when they are in the solution, I couldn't even tell if there were any contacts in there. I tried biofinity 30 days for a couple of days and realized that the difference between AirOptix and Biofinity is only very slight in terms of comfort. But for whatever reason, I have this feeling that I see better with biofinity.

So I went back to my doctors office and picked up the Biofinity lenses that were left for me. So far, I am enjoying them greatly. I have nothing against AirOptix and I can gladly recommend them to someone but since I already bought one year supply of Biofinity, I am inclined to say that I made the right decision.

As for the 2-week lenses I was wearing for a while, I still have no idea what they were (Avaira May be). But I don't particularly care that much to find out.

Hi JayZ. Nice to hear from you again. I'm glad that things seem to be working out okay for you. It seems that Biofinity lenses are comfortable and you also have the option of using the Air Optix lenses.

Hope to year more from you soon.

Attached Images

smiles_432.gif (18.5 KB, 93 views)

Thanks for telling us your Biofinity story, JayZ. Do you still feel like you made the right decision?

I suppose it made sense to him, so I guess he figured we'd all get it.

No, I didn't read the whole thing either. I just scrolled down to find then end of it and by the time I'd scrolled three or four times I'd decided the article was too long. I suspect others have done the same thing.

It reminds me of something on TV a long time ago. An exceptionally gifted student was trying to teach a math class. He did all these complex calculations in his head, and couldn't understand why the class wasn't following along.

Attached Images

aboutus3.jpg (159.2 KB, 74 views)

Dis S d gNR8N dat sends txt msgs dat l%k thus--and you want us to scan this big long ten-page article full of technoblabble to find the answer to Droopy's question which, by the way was . . . well, now I forgot the question.

Rfriel dropped by simply to say "Biofinity is better" and put up a link, to which Droopy replied "Humor me. What's at that site, rfriel? I'm too lazy to copy and paste the link."

Ask, and ye shall receive.

I have a admit, that article--while informative--was very, very long.

Now you see how easy that was? JayZ just told us his own story and it made sense, unlike all that gibberish that rfriel thought would make everything so crystal clear.

There's a lot to be said about simply telling your own story in your own words.

That's a rather interesting picture, Sandi. It looks like the chalkboard from a math classroom, but then right below it are clothes on hangers and a pink sign that says "sale." Did some math geek find what looked like a chalkboard at the Gap and decide to get cute?

My OD gave me a trial of Avaira and I loved them. When I asked about Biofinity (less cost per year), she game me a sample, and I found them to be very uncomfortable. Are they similar lenses? Previously wore Oasys

Avaira/SofMed Breathable lenses are made of Enfilcon A.

Acuvue Oasys are made of Senofilcon A.

Biofinity are made of Comfilcon A. Biofinity lenses are a bit more breathable (higher Dk) than Oasys and Avaira lenses.

Seems like the Avaira just suit you better.

knotlob

Does any of this make sense to anyone? I think that was Little Elvis' point. Shouldn't articles referenced in Lens 101 be a bit more accessible to your average everyday contact lens wearer?

I agree, Bonkers. The information in this forum should be accessible to anyone who wants to learn more about contact lenses, glasses and sunglasses.

One might get the impression that rfriel doesn't know what that article says either. He/She probably just copied and pasted it without knowing what it actually says.

One might get the impression that rfriel doesn't know what that article says either. He/She probably just copied and pasted it without knowing what it actually says.