Skip to main content

Comparison of tear osmolarity and ocular comfort between daily disposable contact lenses: hilafilcon B hydrogel versus narafilcon A silicone hydrogel

International Ophthalmology volume 32, pages 229–233 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate tear osmolarity and ocular comfort with two different types of hydrogel daily disposable lenses. The right eyes of 15 first-time contact lens users were included in this prospective study. All eyes wore hilafilcon B silicone hydrogel contact lenses for 8 h (group 1). After 1 week without contact lenses, all eyes wore narafilcon A silicone hydrogel contact lenses for 8 h (group 2). Tear osmolarity measurement was performed before and after 4 and 8 h of each contact lens wear. Ocular comfort was assessed after 4 and 8 h of each contact lens wear. In group 1, the mean baseline, 4- and 8-h tear osmolarity values were 293 ± 10.57, 303.00 ± 10.5 mOsm/L (p = 0.023), and 295.0 ± 1.4 mOsm/L (p > 0.05), respectively. In group 2, the mean baseline, 4- and 8-h tear osmolarity values were 294 ± 13.65, 300.9 ± 11.3 mOsm/L (p = 0.007), and 298.80 ± 7.2 mOsm/L (p > 0.05), respectively. In group 1, the mean comfort score was 7.20 ± 0.45 and 8.60 ± 0.45 at 4 and 8 h, respectively (p = 0.038). In group 2, the mean comfort score significantly decreased from 9.80 ± 0.45 to 7.80 ± 0.84 at 4 h (p = 0.039). Both hydrogel and silicone hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses elevated tear osmolarity during 8 h of contact lens wear. The increase in tear osmolarity with both contact lenses was below the cut-off value for dry eye and was not associated with ocular comfort.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Martin DK (1987) Osmolality of the tear fluid in the contralateral eye during monocular contact lens wear. Acta Ophthalmol (Cph) 65:551–555

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Farris RL (1986) Tear analysis in contact lens wearers. CLAO J 12:106–111

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. İskeleli G, Karakoc Y, Aydin O et al (2002) Comparison of tear-film osmolarity in different types of contact lenses. CLAO J 28:174–176

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stahl U, Ho A, Brent G et al (2007) Measurements of solutions and contact lenses with a vapor pressure osmometer. Optom Vis Sci 84:321–327

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ramamoorthy P, Sinnott LT, Nichols JJ (2010) Contact lens characteristics associated with hydrogel lens dehydration. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 30:160–166

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Lopez-Alemany A, Almeida JB et al (2009) Dynamic in vitro dehydration patterns of unworn and worn silicone hydrogel contact lenses. J Biomed Mater Res B 90:250–258

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gilbard JP, Gray KL, Rossi SR (1986) A proposed mechanism for increased tear-film osmolarity in contact lens wearers. Am J Ophthalmol 102:505–507

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Guillon M, Maissa C (2005) Dry eye symptomatology of soft contact lens wearers and nonwearers. Optom Vis Sci 82:829–834

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chalmers RL, Begley CG (2006) Dryness symptoms among an unselected clinical population with and without contact lens wear. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 29:25–30

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nichols JJ, Sinnott LT (2006) Tear film, contact lens, and patient-related factors associated with contact lens-related dry eye. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:1319–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Korb DR (1994) Tear film–contact lens interactions. Adv Exp Med Biol 350:403–410

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fonn D, Situ P, Simpson T (1997) Hydrogel lens dehydration and subjective comfort and dryness ratings in symptomatic and asymptomatic contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci 38:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  13. Luo L, Li DQ, Doshi A et al (2004) Experimental dry eye stimulates production of inflammatory cytokines and MMP-9 and activates MAPK signaling pathways on the ocular surface. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:4293–4301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pflugfelder SC, Farley W, Luo L et al (2005) Matrix metalloproteinase-9 knockout confers resistance to corneal epithelial barrier disruption in experimental dry eye. Am J Pathol 166:61–71

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tomlinson A, Khanal S, Ramaesh K et al (2006) Tear film osmolarity: determination of a referent for dry eye diagnosis. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:4309–4315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. The definition and classification of dry eye disease: report of the Definition and Classification Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye Workshop (2007) Ocul Surf 5:75–92

  17. Miller WL, Doughty MJ, Narayanan S et al (2004) A comparison of tear volume (by tear meniscus height and phenol red thread test) and tear fluid osmolality measures in non-lens wearers and in contact lens wearers. Eye Contact Lens 30:132–137

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stahl U, Willcox MDP, Naduvilath T et al (2009) Influence of tear film and contact lens osmolality on ocular comfort in contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci 86:857–867

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sullivan BD, Whitmer D, Nichols KK et al (2010) An objective approach to dry eye disease severity. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:6125–6130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Benelli U, Nardi M, Posarelli C et al (2010) Tear osmolarity measurement using the TearLab Osmolarity System in the assessment of dry eye treatment effectiveness. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 33:61–67

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Meesmer EM, Bulgen M, Kampik A (2010) Hyperosmolarity of the tear film in dry eye syndrome. Dev Ophthalmol 45:129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Versura P, Profazio V, Campos EC (2010) Performance of tear osmolarity compared to previous diagnostic tests for dry eye diseases. Curr Eye Res 35:553–564

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu H, Begley C, Chen M et al (2009) A link between tear instability and hyperosmolarity in dry eye. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:3671–3679

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

None of the authors have any financial support. The study does not have any sponsor.

Conflict of Interest

None of the authors have any declarations of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. 2nd Department of Ophthalmology, Ankara Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey

    Ozge Sarac, Canan Gurdal & Basak Bostancı-Ceran

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Bozok University, Yozgat, Turkey

    Izzet Can

Authors
  1. Ozge Sarac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Canan Gurdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Basak Bostancı-Ceran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Izzet Can
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ozge Sarac.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sarac, O., Gurdal, C., Bostancı-Ceran, B. et al. Comparison of tear osmolarity and ocular comfort between daily disposable contact lenses: hilafilcon B hydrogel versus narafilcon A silicone hydrogel. Int Ophthalmol 32, 229–233 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-012-9556-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-012-9556-y

Keywords

  • Daily wear contact lenses
  • Hydrogel
  • Silicone hydrogel
  • Tear osmolarity
  • Ocular comfort