Effects of different contact lens materials and contact lens-wearing periods on conjunctival cytology in asymptomatic contact lens wearers

Eye and Contact Lens

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 166-168

  Tomatir, Dilek Kutlubey ^a   Erda, Nazan ^a   Gürlü, Vuslat Pelitli ^a  

^a TRAKYA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Contact lens; Impression cytology; Snakelike chromatin; Squamous metaplasia

Indexed keywords

2 HYDROXYETHYL METHACRYLATE; FLUOROSILICONE; POLYMACON; POVIDONE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHROMATIN ASSEMBLY AND DISASSEMBLY; CONJUNCTIVA; CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; GAS PERMEABILITY; HARD CONTACT LENS; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; KRUSKAL WALLIS TEST; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANK SUM TEST; SOFT CONTACT LENS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TIME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONJUNCTIVA; CONTACT LENSES, HYDROPHILIC; EPITHELIAL CELLS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; METAPLASIA; METHACRYLATES; POLYHYDROXYETHYL METHACRYLATE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESIS FITTING; PYRROLIDINES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 43249097852     PISSN: 15422321     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31815788ea     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Götz ML, Jeager W, Kruse FE. Die Impressionscytologie der Bindehaut. Eine nichtinvasive Untersuchungsmethode. Lichtmikroskopische Befunde bei normaler Conjonctiva, bei Keratoconjonctivitis Sicca und bei Kontaktlinsentragern. Fortschr Ophthalmol 1986;83:34-38.
2. Egbert PR, Lauber S, Maurice DM. A simple conjunctival biopsy. Am J Ophthalmol 1977;84:798-801.
3. Knop E, Brewitt H. Conjunctival cytology in asymptomatic wearers of soft contact lenses. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1992;230:340-347.
4. Knop E, Reale E. Fine structure and significance of snakelike chromatin in conjunctival epithelial cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994;35:711-719.
5. Adar S, Kanpolat A, Surucu S, et al. Conjunctival impression cytology in patients wearing contact lenses. Cornea 1997;16:289-294.
6. Saini JS, Rajwanshi A, Dhar S. Clinicopathological correlation of hard contact lens related changes in tarsal conjunctiva by impression cytology. Acta Ophthalmol 1990;68:65-70.
7. Cakmak SS, Unlu MK, Karaca C, et al. Effects of soft contact lenses on conjunctival surface. Eye Contact Lens 2003;29:230-233.
8. Pisella PJ, Malet F, Lejeune S, et al. Ocular surface changes induced by contact lens wear. Cornea 2001;20:820-825.
9. Gurdal C, Aydin S, Kirimlioglu H, et al. Effects of extended-wear soft contact lenses on the ocular surface and central corneal thickness. Ophthalmologica 2003;217:329-336.
10. Simon P, Jaison SG, Chopra SK, et al. Conjunctival impression cytology in contact lens wearers. Ind J Ophthalmol 2002;50:301-306.
11. Lievens CW, Connor CG, Murphy H. Comparing goblet cell densities in patients wearing disposable hydrogel contact lenses versus silicone hydrogel contact lenses in an extended-wear modality. Eye Contact Lens 2003;29:241-244.
12. Anshu Munshi MM, Sathe V, Ganar A. Conjunctival impression cytology in contact lens wearers. Cytopathology 2001;12:314-320.
13. Aragona P, Ferreri G, Micali A, et al. Morphological changes of the conjunctival epithelium in contact lens wearers evaluated by impression cytology. Eye 1998;12:461-466.
14. Nelson JD, Havener VR, Cameron JD. Cellulose acetate impressions of the ocular surface. Arch Ophthalmol 1983;101:1869-1872.
15. Rivas L, Oroza MA, Perez-Esteban A, et al. Morphological changes in ocular surface in dry eyes and other disorders by impression cytology. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1992;230:329-334.