Advertisement

Influence of cosmetically tinted soft contact lenses on higher-order wavefront aberrations and visual performance

  • Takahiro Hiraoka
  • Yuko Ishii
  • Fumiki Okamoto
  • Tetsuro Oshika
Basic Science

Abstract

Background

To investigate the influence of cosmetically tinted soft contact lenses on ocular higher-order aberrations and visual performance, and to analyze the relationship between these parameters after the lens wear.

Methods

In 44 eyes of 22 subjects, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, and ocular higher-order aberrations were evaluated before and after wearing the tinted soft contact lenses (1-day Acuvue® Colours™; Vistakon, Jacksonville, FL). Contrast sensitivity under a photopic condition was determined at 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree, and the area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) was calculated. Mesopic contrast sensitivity with and without glare was assessed. Ocular higher-order aberrations for a 4-mm pupil were measured, and coma-like, spherical-like, and total higher-order aberrations were determined.

Results

The tinted contact lens wearing resulted in significant decreases in log contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies (P < 0.05) and AULCSF (P < 0.0001), although 100% contrast visual acuity did not change. Log mesopic contrast sensitivity with and without glare was also reduced significantly by the lens wear (P < 0.0001). The contact lens wear significantly increased coma-like, spherical-like, and total higher-order aberrations (P < 0.0001). The induced changes in higher-order aberrations were analyzed in relation to the changes in contrast sensitivity function. Although the changes in coma-like and spherical-like aberrations did not correlate significantly with those in AULCSF (P > 0.05), the changes in total higher-order aberrations showed a significant correlation with those in AULCSF (P < 0.05). On the other hand, there was no significant relationship between the changes in higher-order aberrations and the changes in log mesopic contrast sensitivity with and without glare (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Cosmetically tinted contact lenses increase ocular higher-order aberrations and worsen contrast sensitivity under both photopic and mesopic conditions. Increases in higher-order aberrations are responsible for decreased contrast sensitivity under the photopic condition. Tinted contact lens wearers should be sufficiently informed about the possible reduction in optical quality of the eye and quality of vision.

Keywords

Tinted soft contact lens Higher-order aberrations Contrast sensitivity Mesopic vision Quality of vision 

References

  1. 1.
    Spraul CW, Roth HJ, Gackle H, Lang GE, Lang GK (1998) Influence of special-effect contact lenses (Crazy Lenses) on visual function. CLAO J 24:29–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Voetz SC, Collins MJ, Lingelbach B (2004) Recovery of corneal topography and vision following opaque-tinted contact lens wear. Eye Contact Lens 30:111–117. doi: 10.1097/01.ICL.00000121371.25780.F8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Snyder RW, Brenner MB, Wiley L, Yee RW, Gradus MS, Mackman GS (1991) Microbial keratitis associated with plano tinted contact lenses. CLAO J 17:252–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albarran Diego C, Montes-Mico R, Pons AM, Artigas JM (2001) Influence of the luminance level on visual performance with a disposable soft cosmetic tinted contact lens. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 21:411–419. doi: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.2001.00603.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ozkagnici A, Zengin N, Kamis O, Gunduz K (2003) Do daily wear opaquely tinted hydrogel soft contact lenses affect contrast sensitivity function at one meter. Eye Contact Lens 29:48–49. doi: 10.1097/00140068-200301000-00012 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    López-Gil N, Castejón-Mochón JF, Benito A, Marín JM, Lo-a-Foe G, Marin G, Fermigier B, Renard D, Joyeux D, Château N, Artal P (2002) Aberration generation by contact lenses with aspheric and asymmetric surfaces. J Refract Surg 18:S603–S609PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeong TM, Menon M, Yoon G (2005) Measurement of wave-front aberration in soft contact lenses by use of a Shack-Hartmann wave-front sensor. Appl Opt 44:4523–4527. doi: 10.1364/AO.44.004523 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roberts B, Athappilly G, Tinio B, Naikoo H, Asbell P (2006) Higher-order aberrations induced by soft contact lenses in normal eyes with myopia. Eye Contact Lens 32:138–142. doi: 10.1097/01.icl.0000195570.73454.a5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jiang H, Wang D, Yang L, Xie P, He JC (2006) A comparison of wavefront aberrations in eyes wearing different types of soft contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 83:769–774. doi: 10.1097/01.opx.0000236786.96023.9c PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hong X, Himebaugh N, Thibos LN (2001) On-eye evaluation of optical performance of rigid and soft contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 78:872–880. doi: 10.1097/00006324-200112000-00009 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cox I, Holden BA (1990) Soft contact lens-induced longitudinal spherical aberration and its effect on contrast sensitivity. Optom Vis Sci 67:679–683. doi: 10.1097/00006324-199009000-00004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Brabander J, Chateau N, Bouchard F, Guidollet S (1998) Contrast sensitivity with soft contact lenses compensated for spherical aberration in high ametropia. Optom Vis Sci 75:37–43. doi: 10.1097/00006324-199801000-00023 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vaz TC, Gundel RE (2003) High-and low-contrast visual acuity measurements in spherical and aspheric soft contact lens wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 26:147–151. doi: 10.1016/S1367-0484(03)00025-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Applegate RA, Howland HC, Sharp RP, Cottingham AJ, Yee RW (1998) Corneal aberrations and visual performance after keratotomy. J Refract Surg 14:397–407PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nagy ZZ, Munkacsy G, Krueger RR (2002) Changes in mesopic vision after photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Refract Surg 18:249–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perez-Carrasco MJ, Puell MC, Sanchez-Ramos C, Lopez-Castro A, Langa A (2005) Effect of a yellow filter on contrast sensitivity and disability glare after laser in situ keratomileusis under mesopic and photopic conditions. J Refract Surg 21:158–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hiraoka T, Okamoto C, Ishii Y, Takahira T, Kakita T, Oshika T (2008) Mesopic contrast sensitivity and ocular higher-order aberrations following overnight orthokeratology. Am J Ophthalmol 145:645–655. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.11.021 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schlote T, Kriegerowski M, Bende T, Derse M, Thiel HJ, Jean B (1997) Mesopic vision in myopia corrected by photorefractive keratectomy, soft contact lenses, and spectacles. J Cataract Refract Surg 23:718–725PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuroda T, Fujikado T, Maeda N, Oshika T, Hirohara Y, Mihashi T (2002) Wavefront analysis of higher-order aberrations in patients with cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:438–444. doi: 10.1016/S0886-3350(01)01176-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yamane N, Miyata K, Samejima T, Hiraoka T, Kiuchi T, Okamoto F, Hirohara Y, Mihashi T, Oshika T (2004) Ocular higher-order aberrations and contrast sensitivity after conventional laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:3986–3990. doi: 10.1167/iovs.04-0629 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kosaka K, Negishi K, Onuma K, Oguchi Y (2004) Measurement of pupil diameter under photopic and scotopic conditions using a handheld open-view type digital pupillometer. Atarashii Ganka 21:1281–1284Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clements D, Augsburger A, Barr JT, Marshall D (1988) Corneal imprinting associated with wearing a tinted hydrogel lens. Contact Lens Spectrum 65–67Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schanzer MC, Mehta RS, Arnold TP, Zuckerbrod SL, Koch DD (1989) Irregular astigmatism induced by annular tinted contact lenses. CLAO J 15:207–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hunt L (2000) Annular tinted contact lenses caused irregular corneal astigmatism. Insight 25:16–17. doi: 10.1016/S1060-135X(00)90033-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bucci FA Jr, Evans RE, Moody KJ, Tanner JB, Capozza RC, Klyce SD (1997) The annular tinted contact lens syndrome: corneal topographic analysis of ring-shaped irregular astigmatism caused by annular tinted contact lenses. CLAO J 23:161–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gauthier CA, Grant T, Holden BA (1992) Clinical performance of two opaque, tinted soft contact lenses. J Am Optom Assoc 63:344–349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grey CP (1986) Changes in contrast sensitivity during the first hour of soft lens wear. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 63:702–707PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koh S, Maeda N, Kuroda T, Hori Y, Watanabe H, Fujikado T, Tano Y, Hirohara Y, Mihashi T (2002) Effect of tear film break-up on higher-order aberrations measured with wavefront sensor. Am J Ophthalmol 134:115–117. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9394(02)01430-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Koh S, Maeda N, Hirohara Y, Mihashi T, Ninomiya S, Bessho K, Watanabe H, Fujikado T, Tano Y (2006) Serial measurements of higher-order aberrations after blinking in normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:3318–3324. doi: 10.1167/iovs.06-0018 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Montés-Micó R (2007) Role of the tear film in the optical quality of the human eye. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1631–1635. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.06.019 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Briggs ST (1998) Contrast sensitivity assessment of soft contact lens wearers. Int Contact Lens Clin 25:99–102. doi: 10.1016/S0892-8967(98)00019-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mitra S, Lamberts DW (1981) Contrast sensitivity in soft lens wearers. Contact Intraocul Lens Med J 7:315–322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kirkpatrick DL, Roggenkamp JR (1985) Effects of soft contact lenses on contrast sensitivity. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 62:407–412PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tomlinson A, Mann G (1985) An analysis of visual performance with soft contact lens and spectacle correction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 5:53–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nowozyckyj A, Carney LG, Efron N (1988) Effect of hydrogel lens wear on contrast sensitivity. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 65:263–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Grey CP (1987) Changes in contrast sensitivity during the first six months of soft lens wear. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 64:768–774PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Woo GC, Sivak JG (1976) The effect of hard and soft contact lenses (SoflensTM) on the spherical aberration of the human eye. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 53:459–463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Llabres CM, Antunez DM (1994) Evaluating protein deposits on preferences and CSI lenses. Spectrum :23–29Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grey CP (1986) Changes in contrast sensitivity when wearing low, medium and high water content soft lenses. J Br Contact Lens Assoc 9:21–25. doi: 10.1016/S0141-7037(86)80010-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McClure DA, Ohota S, Eriksen SP, Randen KJ (1977) The effect on measured visual acuity of protein deposition and removal in soft contact lenses. Contacto 21:8–12Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Carney LG, Jacobs RJ (1984) Mechanisms of visual loss in corneal edema. Arch Ophthalmol 102:1068–1071PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wachler BS, Phillips CL, Schanzlin DJ, Krueger RR (1999) Comparison of contrast sensitivity in different soft contact lenses and spectacles. CLAO J 25:48–51PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takahiro Hiraoka
    • 1
  • Yuko Ishii
    • 1
  • Fumiki Okamoto
    • 1
  • Tetsuro Oshika
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology, Institute of Clinical MedicineUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations