Advertisement

Hydrogels Contact Lenses

  • Jiri Michalek
  • Radka Hobzova
  • Martin Pradny
  • Miroslava Duskova
Chapter

Abstract

Contact lenses can be classified in a number of ways; however, the two main categories are hard and soft lenses, which are based on the material used for their manufacture. The soft lens category can be further divided into hydrophobic and hydrophilic subcategories. Consequently, the development of contact lens materials took three specific directions: hydrogels with high water content, rigid gas-permeable lenses with enhanced oxygen permeability, and surface modification of silicone elastomer lenses. These polymeric systems are expected to improve the water content of the contact lenses as well as the permeability to oxygen, which are crucial properties but controllable through the molecular design. Currently, the high water content hydrogels are being challenged by the silicone-hydrogels for the world market share.

Keywords

Contact Lens Methacrylic Acid Oxygen Permeability Glycidyl Methacrylate Alkyl Methacrylate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Wichterle O, Lím D (1960) Hydrophilic gels for biological use. Nature 185:117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wichterle O, Lím D (1961) Method for producing shaped articontact lenses from three-dimensional hydrophilic polymers. US Patent 2,976,576Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wichterle O, Lím D (1965) Cross-linked hydrophilic polymers and articontact lenses made therefrom. US Patent 3,220,960Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wichterle O (1992) The task: “Contact lenses”. In: Dalrymple K (ed) Recollection. Impreso, Prague, pp 128–141Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Efron N (2002) Historical perspective. In: Contact lens practice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heitz RF, Enoch JM (1987) Leonardo da Vinci: an assessment on his discontact lensesosures on image formation in the eye. In: Fiorentini A, Guyton DL, Siegel IM (eds) Advances in diagnostic visual optics. Springer, New York, pp 19–26Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Enoch JM (1956) Descartes´contact lens. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 33:77–85Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Young T (1801) On the mechanism of the eye. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Biol Sci 91:23–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Black CJ (1973) Contact lenses – an overview. In: Symposium on contact lenses, Transactions of the New Orleans Academy of Ophthalmology, C.V. Mosby, St. Louis, MOGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gould HL (1973) Therapeutic effect of flush-fitting scontact lenseseral lenses and hydrogel bandage lenses. In: Symposium on contact lenses, Transactions of the New Orleans Academy of Ophthalmology, C.V. Mosby, St. Louis, MOGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feinbloom W (1936) A plastic contact lens. Trans Am Acad Optom 10:37–44Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braff SM (1983) The Max Schapero lecture: contact lens horizons. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 60:851–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Refojo MF (1977) Contact lenses. In: Mark HF, Bikales NM (eds) Encyclopedia of polymer science and technology. Interscience, New York, pp 195–215Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brennan N, Coles C (2002) Continuous wear. In: Efron N (ed) Contact lens practice. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, p 276Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wichterle O (1978) The beginning of the soft lens. In: Ruben M (ed) Soft contact lenses: clinical and applied technology. Baillière Tindall, London, pp 3–5Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gaylord NG (1974) Oxygen permeable contact lens composition methods and articontact lensese of manufacture (to Polycon Lab Inc.). US Patent 3,808,178Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nilsson S (1997) Ten years of disposable lenses – a review of benefits and risks. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 20:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tighe B, Brennan N, Coles C (1999) Silicone hydrogels – What are they and how should they be used in everyday practice? Optician 218(5726):31–32Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Michálek J (2000) Materials for contact lenses for extended wearing (in Czech). In: Proceedings of lectures, Czech society for contactologists, Prague, pp 24–38Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Čejková J (1996) Physiology of cornea and contact lenses (in Czech). In: Proceedings of lectures, Czech society for contactologists, Prague, pp 6–10Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Čejková J, Lojda Z, Brůnová B, Vacík J, Michálek J (1988) Disturbances in the rabbit cornea after short-term and long-term wear of hydrogel contact lenses. Usefulness of histochemical methods. Histochemistry 89:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holden BA, Mertz GW (1984) Critical oxygen levels to avoid corneal edema for daily and extended wear contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 25:1161–1167Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tsubota K, Laing R (1992) Metabolic changes in the corneal epithelium resulting from hard contact lens wear. Cornea 11:121–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin MC, Graham AD, Fusaro RE, Polse KA (2002) Impact of rigid gas-permeable contact lens extended wear on corneal epithelial barrier function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:1019–1024Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morgan PB, Efron N, Helland M et al (2001) Trends in international contact lens prescribing 2000. Optician 221(5799):26–32Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilson G (2000) The epithelium in extended wear. In: Sweeney D (ed) Silicone hydrogels: the rebirth of continuous wear contact lenses. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 22–40Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Efron N et al (1993) The international contact lens year book. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tighe B (2002) Soft lens materials. In: Efron N (ed) Contact lens practice. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 75–76Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    FDA official websites: www.fda.gov
  30. 30.
    Čejková J, Lojda Z, Brůnová B, Vacík J, Michálek J (1989) A comparison of the compatibility of hydrophilic contact lenses from HEMA (37 H2O) and HEMA-DEGMA (55, 65 H2O) on the rabbit eye. I. Changes in the transparency of the cornea due to a disturbance in its hydration (in Czech). Cesk Oftalmol 6:401–407Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Čejková J, Lojda Z, Brůnová B, Vacík J, Michálek J (1989) A comparison of the compatibility of hydrophilic contact lenses from HEMA (37 H2O) and HEMA-DEGMA (55, 65 H2O) on the rabbit eye. II. Changes in the transparency of the cornea due to deep degenerative processes (in Czech). Cesk Oftalmol 6:408–411Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stárková L, Michálek J (2006) Nowadays contact lenses on the Czech market (in Czech). XIII. Congress of the Czech contact lens society, Nymburk, Nov 2006Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tighe B (2000) Silicone hydrogel materials – how do they work? In: Sweeney D (ed) Silicone hydrogels: the rebirth of continuous wear contact lenses. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tighe B (2002) Soft lens materials. In: Efron N (ed) Contact lens practice. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 82–83Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Koros WJ, Fleming GK (1993) Membrane-based gas separation. J Memb Sci 83:1–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiri Michalek
    • 1
  • Radka Hobzova
    • 1
  • Martin Pradny
    • 1
  • Miroslava Duskova
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Macromolecular ChemistryAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPrague 6Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations