Results 1 to 49 of 49

Thread: Biofinity is better

  1. #1

    Default Biofinity is better

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    516

    Default Humor Me

    Quote Originally Posted by rfriel View Post
    http://www.opticianonline.net/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=3086
    What's at that site, rfriel? I'm too lazy to copy and paste the link.

  3. #3

    Default yeah, that's it

    Quote Originally Posted by Droopy View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    274

    Default That's a Big Posting

    Woah.

    So, like, what does all that mean?

  5. #5

    Default somebody got lazy

    Quote Originally Posted by Walkthisway View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    918

    Default What Convinced you?

    Quote Originally Posted by rfriel View Post
    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"?

  7. #7

    Default i realize that people dont give a flyin' F****

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleElvis View Post
    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",

  8. #8

    Default one messed up biofinity lens

    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rfriel View Post
    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?

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John316 View Post
    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

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    475

    Default Modulus Questions

    Quote Originally Posted by rfriel View Post
    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?

  12. #12

    Default modulus

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurassicmark View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    435

    Default Am I Smart Enough to Read Lens 101?

    Quote Originally Posted by rfriel View Post
    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.

  14. #14

    Default there always google??

    Quote Originally Posted by John316 View Post
    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

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    274

    Default Don't Give Me No Medical Jive

    Quote Originally Posted by rfriel View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    near Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walkthisway View Post
    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

  17. #17

    Default

    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.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knotlob View Post
    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
    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.

  19. #19

    Default The Writer Has Done a Poor Job

    Quote Originally Posted by lurker2010 View Post
    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.
    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.

  20. #20

    Default Not Too Lazy

    Quote Originally Posted by Droopy View Post
    What's at that site, rfriel? I'm too lazy to copy and paste the link.
    Apparently rfriel wasn't too lazy to copy and paste an entire article . . .

    Shame on you, Droopy.

  21. #21

    Default Limbal Hyperaemia Indeed

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleElvis View Post
    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"?
    Looks like someone at least scanned the article for techno-babble.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    516

    Default What Did You Get Out of It?

    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?
    Last edited by Admin; 06-29-2010 at 04:55 PM. Reason: Quote length exceeded

  23. #23

    Default Biofinity 30 Day vs Biomedics 2 weeks vs Air Optix Aqua

    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.

  24. #24

    Default

    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?
    Last edited by Admin; 06-29-2010 at 04:56 PM. Reason: Quote length exceeded

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    near Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayZ View Post
    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.
    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

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knotlob View Post
    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.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    near Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayZ View Post
    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

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayZ View Post
    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.
    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!

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knotlob View Post
    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
    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.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    near Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayZ View Post
    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

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knotlob View Post
    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.

  32. #32

    Default Apology Accepted

    Quote Originally Posted by JayZ View Post
    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.
    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?

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayZ View Post
    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.
    Have you seen your eye doctor again yet, JayZ? What's the latest?

  34. #34

    Default Change of plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurassicmark View Post
    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.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayZ View Post
    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 Attached Images

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayZ View Post
    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.
    Thanks for telling us your Biofinity story, JayZ. Do you still feel like you made the right decision?

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bessie View Post
    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?
    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.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John316 View Post
    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 Attached Images

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rfriel View Post
    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.
    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.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walkthisway View Post
    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.

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayZ View Post
    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.
    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.

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurassicmark View Post
    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.

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SandiStix View Post
    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.
    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?

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayZ View Post
    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.
    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

  45. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    near Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgash View Post
    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

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleElvis View Post
    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"?
    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?

  47. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    475

    Default Access to All

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonkers View Post
    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.

  48. #48

    Default Translation Please

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurassicmark View Post
    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.

  49. #49

    Default Translation Please

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurassicmark View Post
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • Contact Lenses / Contact Lens Forums

    1. Daily Disposable Contact Lenses 2

      1-Day Acuvue 2, 1-Day Acuvue Moist 2, 1-Day Acuvue TruEye, Biotrue ONEday Biomedics 1 Day 2, ClearSight 1 Day, Dailies AquaComfort Plus 2, Focus Dailies 2, Proclear 1 Day 2, SofLens Daily Disposable 2,
    1. 1-2 Week Disposable Contact Lenses

      Acuvue 2, Acuvue 2 2, Acuvue Advance 2, Acuvue Oasys 2, Avaira, Biomedics 38 2, Biomedics 55 2, Biomedics 55 Premier 2, Biomedics EP, Biomedics XC 2, Extreme H20 54% 2, Extreme H2O 59% Thin 2, Extreme H2O 59% Xtra 2, FreshLook Handling Tint 2, O2 Optix 2, Precision UV 2, SofLens 38 2, SofLens 59 2, Vertex Sphere
    1. Monthly Disposable Contact Lenses

      Air Optix Aqua 2, Air Optix Night & Day Aqua, Biofinity 2, Clarity H2O, Focus Monthly Visitint 2, Focus Night & Day 2, Frequency 55 2, Frequency 55 Aspheric 2, Optima 38 SP 2, Preference 2, Preference Standard 2, Proclear Compatibles 2, PureVision 2
    1. Color Contact Lenses 2 3 4 5 6 7

      Acuvue 2 Colours - Enhancers 2, Acuvue 2 Colours - Opaques 2, Expressions Colors 2, Focus 1-2 Week SoftColors 2, FreshLook Dimensions 2, Focus Monthly SoftColors 2, FreshLook ColorBlends 2, FreshLook Colors 2, FreshLook One-Day 2
    1. Gas Permeable Contact Lenses 2 3

      Boston 7 2, Boston Envision 2, Boston EO 2, Boston Equalens 2, Boston Equalens II 2, Boston ES 2, Boston II 2, Boston IV 2, Boston RXD 2, Boston XO 2, Boston XO2 2, Flosi 2, Fluorex 300 2, Fluorex 500 2, Fluorex 700 2, Fluorocon 2, Fluoroperm 151 2, Fluoroperm 30 2, Fluoroperm 60 2, Fluoroperm 92 2, Hydro 02 2, OP-2 2, OP-10 2, OP-3 2, OP-6 2, O-Perm 30 2, O-Perm 60 2, Optacryl 60 2, Optimum Classic 2, Optimum Comfort 2, Optimum Extra 2, Optimum Extreme 2, Paragon HDS 2, Paragon HDS 100 2, Paragon Thin 2, Paraperm 02 2, Paraperm EW 2, PMMA 2, Polycon II 2, SA 18 (Phoenix 18) 2, SA 32 (Phoenix 32) 2, SGP I 2, SGP II 2, SGP III 2, Trans-aire 2
    1. Toric Contact Lenses 2 3

      Acuvue Advance for Astigmatism 2, 1-Day Acuvue Moist for Astigmatism, Avaira Toric, Extreme H20 54% Toric, Purevision 2HD, Purevision 2HD for Astigmatism, Acuvue Oasys for Astigmatism 2, Air Optix for Astigmatism 2, Biomedics Toric, Biofinity Toric, ClearSight 1 Day Toric, Focus Dailies Toric 2, Focus Monthly Toric 2, Frequency 55 Toric 2, Frequency 55 Toric XR, FreshLook ColorBlends Toric 2, FreshLook Toric 2, Optima Toric 2, Preference Toric DW 2, Preference Toric XR, Proclear Toric 2, Proclear Toric XR, PureVision Toric 2, SofLens 66 Toric 2, Vertex Toric 2, Vertex Toric XR,
    1. Bifocal Contact Lenses 2

      Acuvue Bifocal 2, Biofinity Multifocal, Acuvue Oasys for Presbyopia, Air Optix Aqua Multifocal, Focus Dailies Progressives 2, Frequency 55 Multifocal, Proclear Multifocal, PureVision Multi-Focal 2, SofLens Multi-Focal 2
    1. Vial Contact Lenses

      Silsoft Aphakic Adult, Silsoft Super Plus Kids, Softcon EW 2,
    1. Other Contact Lenses 2 3, & Contact Lens Care 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

      Celebrity Contact Lenses 2, Halloween Contact Lenses 2, Novelty Contact Lenses 2, Special Effects Contact Lenses 2, Sports Contact Lenses 2
  • Contact Lens Solutions

    1. Multi-Purpose Solutions

      Aquify, Biofresh, Biotrue, Clear Care, COMPLETE, OPTI-FREE EXPRESS, OPTI-FREE Pure Moist, OPTI-FREE RepleniSH, Oxysept, ReNu Fresh, ReNu Sensitive, RevitaLens, Sensitive Eyes Daily Cleaner, Sensitive Eyes Plus Saline, Ultrazyme
    1. Gas Permeable

      Boston Advance (GP), Boston Conditioning and Cleaner (GP), Boston One Step Liquid Enzymatic (GP), Boston Simplus (GP), OPTI-FREE GP
    1. Protein Removers

      OPTI-FREE Supra Clens, ReNu 1 Step liquid Protein Remover
    1. Comfort Drops

      Blink Contacts Lubricating Eye Drops, Boston Rewetting Drops (GP) COMPLETE Blink-N-Clean Lens Drops, OPTI-FREE Pure Moist Rewetting Drops OPTI-FREE RepleniSH Rewetting Drops, ReNu MultiPlus Rewetting Drops ReNu Rewetting Drops, Sensitive Eyes Rewetting Drops
  • Eyewear

    1. Eyeglasses & Reading Glasses

      Prada Eyeglasses, Armani Eyeglasses, Versace Eyeglasses, Calvin Klein Eyeglasses, Ray Ban Eyeglasses, Oakley Eyeglasses, Vogue Eyeglasses, DKNY Eyeglasses, Cazal Eyeglasses, Safilo Eyeglasses
    1. Sunglasses

      Oakley Sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses, Christian Dior Sunglasses, Prada Sunglasses, Spy Sunglasses, Dolce & Gabbana Sunglasses, Maui Jim Sunglasses, Smith Sunglasses, Versace Sunglasses, Bolle Sunglasses
  • Eye Care Forums

    1. Eye Health

      Eye Surgery 2 3 4 5, General Eye Health 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9,
    1. Eye Care Professionals

      ECP Corner
  • News

    1. News Archive

      2010 (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec) 2009 (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec) 2008 (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec) 2007 (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec) 2006 (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec) 2005 (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec) 2004 (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec)