Impact of manufacturing technology and material composition on the surface characteristics of hydrogel contact lenses

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

Volumn 88, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 396-404

  Maldonado Codina, Carole ^a   Efron, Nathan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Atomic force microscopy; Contact lens; Hydrogel; Manufacture; Scanning electron microscopy; Surface topography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; HUMAN; HYDROGEL; HYDROPHILIC CONTACT LENS; MATERIALS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; SURFACE PROPERTY;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; CONTACT LENSES, HYDROPHILIC; HUMANS; HYDROGEL; MANUFACTURED MATERIALS; MICROSCOPY, ATOMIC FORCE; MICROSCOPY, ELECTRON, SCANNING; SURFACE PROPERTIES;

EID: 33644679384     PISSN: 08164622     EISSN: 14440938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2005.tb05106.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Grobe GL, Valint PL, Ammon DM. Surface chemical structure for soft contact lenses as a function of polymer processing. J Biomed Mater Res 1996; 32: 45-54.
2. Maldonado-Codina C, Morgan PB, Efron N. Characterization of conventional hydrogel and silicone hydrogel lenses by ToF-SIMS. Optom Vis Sci 2004; 81: 455-460.
3. Baker D, Tighe BJ. Polymers in contact lens applications (VIII). The problem of biocompatibility. Contact Lens J 1981; 10: 3-14.
4. Hart DE, DePaolis M, Ratner BD, Mateo NB. Surface analysis of hydrogel contact lenses by ESCA. CLAO J 1993; 19: 169-173.
5. Castillo EJ, Koenig JL, Anderson JM, Kliment CK, Lo J. Surface analysis of biomedical polymers by attenuated total reflectance-Fourier transform infra-red. Biomaterials 1984; 5: 186-193.
6. Morra M, Occhiello E, Garbassi F. On the wettability of poly (2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate). J Coll Inter Sci 1991; 149: 84-91.
7. Morris C, Holden BA, Papas EB, Griesser HJ, Bolis S, Anderton P et al. The ocular surface, the tear film, and the wettability of contact lenses. In: Sullivan DA, ed. Lacrimal Gland, Tear Film and Dry Eye Syndromes 2. NY, USA: Plenum Press, 1998. p717-722.
8. Sack RA, Jones B, Antignani A, Libow R, Harvey H. Specificity and biological activity of the protein deposited on the hydrogel surface. Relationship of polymer structure to biofilm formation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1987; 28: 842-849.
9. Jones L, Franklin VJ, Evans K, Sariri R, Tighe B. Spoilation and clinical performance of monthly vs. three monthly group II disposable contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1996; 73: 16-21.
10. Maissa C, Franklin VJ, Guillon M, Tighe B. Influence of contact lens material surface characteristics and replacement frequency on protein and lipid deposition. Optom Vis Sci 1998; 75: 697-705.
11. Opdahl A, Kim SH, Koffas TS, Marmo C, Somorjai GA. Surface mechanical properties of pHEMA contact lenses: viscoelastic and adhesive property changes on exposure to controlled humidity. J Biomed Mater Res A 2003; 67: 350-356.
12. Kim SH, Opdahl A, Marmo C, Somorjai GA. AFM and SFG studies of pHEMA-based hydrogel contact lens surfaces in saline solution: adhesion, friction, and the presence of non-crosslinked polymer chains at the surface. Biomaterials 2002; 23: 1657-1666.
13. Matas BR, Spencer WH, Hayes TL. SEM of hydrophilic contact lenses. Arch Ophthalmol 1972; 88: 287-295.
14. Holden BA, Pain P, Zantos S. Observations on SEM of hydrophilic contact lenses. Aust J Optom 1974; 57: 100-106.
15. Bhatia S, Goldberg E P, Enns JB. Examination of contact lens surfaces by Atomic Force Microscope (AFM). CLAO J 1997; 23: 264-269.
16. Baguet J, Sommer F, Duc TM. Imaging surfaces of hydrophilic contact lenses with the atomic force microscope. Biomaterials 1993; 14: 279-284.
17. Maldonado-Codina C, Efron N. Hydrogel materials and manufacture. Optom Pract 2003; 4: 101-113.
18. Maldonado-Codina C, Efron N. Impact of manufacturing technology and material composition on the clinical performance of hydrogel lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2004; 81: 442-454. (Pubitemid 38780439)
19. Maldonado-Codina C, Efron N. Impact of manufacturing technology and material composition on the mechanical properties of hydrogel contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004; 24: 551-561. (Pubitemid 41710992)
20. Doughty MJ, Bergmanson JP, Blocker Y. Shrinkage and distortion of the rabbit corneal endothelial cell mosaic caused by a high osmolality glutaraldehyde-formaldehyde fixative compared to glutaraldehyde. Tissue Cell 1997; 29: 533-547.
21. Koizumi N, Fullwood NJ, Bairaktaris G, Inatomi T, Kinoshita S, Quantock AJ. Cultivation of corneal epithelial cells on intact and denuded human amniotic membrane. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 2506-2513.
22. Braet F, Zanger DE, Wisse E. Drying cells for SEM, AFM and TEM by hexamethyldisilazane: a study on hepatic endothelial cells. J Microscopy 1997; 186: 84-87.
23. Deg JK, Binder PS. Electron microscopic features of never-worn soft contact lenses: deposits or artifacts? Curr Eye Res 1986; 5: 27-36.
24. Hansma PK, Cleveland JP, Radmacher M, Walters DA, Hillner PE, Bezanilla M et al. Tapping mode atomic force microscopy in liquids. Appl Phys Lett 1994; 64: 1738-1740.
25. Rabke CE, Valint PL, Ammon DM. Ophthalmic applications of atomic force microscopy. Int Contact Lens Clin 1995; 22: 32-41.
26. Anonymous. Statview user manual. 1998, SAS Institute Inc.
27. Hart DE. Surface interactions on hydrogel contact lenses: scanning electron microscopy. J Am Optom Assoc 1987; 58: 962-974.
28. Fowler SA, Gaertner KL. Scanning electron microscopy of deposits remaining in soft contact lens polishing marks after cleaning. CLAO J 1990; 16: 214-218.
29. Maldonado-Codina C. Impact of manufacturing technology on the physico-chemical properties and clinical performance of soft contact lenses. PhD thesis, UMIST, 2001.