Optometry & Vision Science

Skip Navigation LinksHome > October 2007 - Volume 84 - Issue 10 > The Impact of Lipid on Contact Angle Wettability
Optometry & Vision Science:
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318157a6c1
Original Article

The Impact of Lipid on Contact Angle Wettability


Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Centre for Contact Lens Research, School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

This work was funded by a Collaborative Research and Development Grant from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Alcon Research Limited.

Received November 13, 2006; accepted May 18, 2007.

Collapse Box


Purpose. To analyze the effect of in vitro lipid doping on conventional hydrogel (CH) and silicone hydrogel (SH) lens wettability, assessed by sessile drop contact angle (CA) measurement.

Methods. Nine contact lens materials, five SHs and four CH, were incubated with two different lipid tear solutions (LTS) containing cholesterol, cholesteryl oleate, oleic acid, oleic acid methyl ester, and triolein. The first LTS was a “low” concentration solution, which was close to human values, and the second was a “high” concentration. Lenses were soaked in the two LTS types for 2 or 5 days and compared with lenses soaked in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) only. After soaking, advancing CAs were measured on a customized computerized device using a sessile drop method.

Results. Compared with PBS, CAs for untreated SHs were unaffected by soaking in the LTS, with typical CA values of >95° (p > 0.05). The surface-treated SH materials exhibited markedly reduced CAs after lipid exposure, with the high concentration LTS reducing the CA to <5° (p < 0.01). The CH materials all exhibited lower CAs after soaking, with values typically decreasing to 35°, which was significantly lower than that seen with PBS (p < 0.01).

Conclusion. Exposure to lipid may improve the wettability of certain SH and CH materials, particularly those SH materials that are surface treated. This may help to explain why certain SH materials appear to improve in comfort for some patients during the first few hours or days of wear.

In the past 30 years, contact lens wear has increased from 10 million to over 125 million wearers.1 Over the past 5 years, the greatest revolution in contact lenses has been the development of highly oxygen permeable contact lens materials, based upon the combination of siloxane groups with conventional hydrogel (CH) monomers.2–4 These silicone hydrogel (SH) materials transmit significantly greater amounts of oxygen than conventional poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate)-based materials4,5 and their physiological performance, both on an overnight and daily wear basis, is substantially better than that seen with older materials.6–12 However, one major disadvantage with these materials is that the incorporation of siloxane groups makes the materials more hydrophobic. This is demonstrated by their reduced wettability [as determined by contact angle (CA) assessment]13–16 and increased level of lipid deposition17 compared with CHs. To make the surfaces of SH lens materials hydrophilic and more wettable, techniques incorporating plasma into the surface processing of the lens have been developed.3,4,18,19 More recent techniques have involved incorporating hydrophilic monomers into the lens material that “migrate” to the surface of the lens and aid wettability.20–21 The purpose of these surface treatments is to mask the hydrophobic silicone from the tear film, increasing the surface wettability of the materials and reducing lipid deposition.22

Wettability is an important property of contact lens materials, potentially governing the interaction between the ocular surface and eyelid with the contact lens surface. Studies investigating the impact of frequent replacement of hydrogels lenses have shown that as wettability reduces over time, so does lens comfort.23 This may be because of the surface drying between blinks, resulting in hydrophobic areas that irritate the lid as it moves over the lens surface. Wettability may be assessed in a number of ways, using both in vivo techniques and laboratory-based in vitro techniques, as previously reviewed by French.24 Analysis has shown that the treatment of the surfaces of the “first generation” SH materials (Bausch & Lomb PureVision and CIBA Vision Night & Day) have been only partly effective at masking the silicone, with the lenses having significantly more silicone exposed at or near the surface and a more hydrophobic surface (as evidenced by the presence of higher advancing water CAs),25,26 as opposed to conventional lenses.13–16,25,26

In vitro wettability may be assessed using a variety of methods.24 These include sessile drop,13,15,27 captive bubble,14 and Wilhelmy plate,28 all of which have been used to investigate hydrogel wettability. The sessile drop method measures the advancing CA and has been recently reported for SH and CH materials.27,29,30 In the sessile drop method, a poorly wetting surface would demonstrate a high CA, typically of >70°, as seen in Fig. 1. In contrast, a sessile drop image demonstrating a contact lens material that is deemed completely wettable will have a CA close to 0°, and the water droplet will be virtually indistinguishable from the contact lens surface, as shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 1
Figure 1
Image Tools
Figure 2
Figure 2
Image Tools

To date, no published work has been reported on the impact of the deposition of lipids on SH surface wettability. The purpose of this study was to determine if lipid deposition would influence material wettability, determined by in vitro CA assessment, in both conventional and silicone-based hydrogels.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Study Outline

In this experiment, nine different contact lens materials were utilized, consisting of five SHs (Table 1) and four CH materials (Table 2). Each of these contact lens materials were artificially incubated with two different lipid tear solutions (LTS) containing five lipids, the composition of which is described below. After an incubation period of 2 or 5 days, the wettability of the lens materials was determined using a sessile drop method. These two time periods were chosen to investigate whether differences in incubation periods would influence the wettability during the early periods of lens wear.

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools
Table 2
Table 2
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Lipid Stock Preparation.

The first step in this experiment was to make a lipid stock solution that contained high concentrations of the desired lipids in ratios similar to that found in a normal healthy tear film. The lipids used were cholesterol, oleic acid, oleic acid methyl ester, cholesteryl oleate, and triolein (Sigma, St. Louis, MO). These lipids are representative of the typical lipid types found in the human tear film.31–35 Information pertaining to these lipids and their concentrations can be found in Table 3.

Table 3
Table 3
Image Tools

Initially, to make the lipid stock solution, pure lipids were analytically measured by weight or volume and placed in an amber vial and dissolved in 50:50 hexane and ether. The vial was then wrapped in aluminum foil and stored at −20°C until required.

Back to Top | Article Outline

The second step was to make a LTS that could be used to incubate the contact lenses. The LTS was prepared by removing the lipid stock solution from the freezer and allowing it to thaw in a dark place at room temperature. Phosphate buffered saline (PBS) was heated up to 37°C in a sterile culture tube. Once the PBS had reached its desired temperature, lipid stock was pipetted into the culture tube under a culture fume hood, to maintain sterility of the solutions. The lid of the culture tube was left off to allow the hexane or ether to evaporate off. Once the solution was cooled, the culture tube was reheated to 37°C. The evaporation and reheating stage were completed three times to ensure maximal evaporation of the solvent. Once all the hexane and ether had evaporated, the solution was stored at −4°C for a maximum of 1 week. Two concentrations of the lipids in the LTS were chosen and labeled “low” and “high.” These concentrations were chosen in an attempt to simulate the variable lipid availability during in-eyewear. The low concentration was taken as being arbitrarily close to that seen in a subject with a “normal” tear film. The“high” concentration solution contained a higher concentration of each lipid. This was used in an attempt to mimic the constant replenishment of the tear film, which would occur everyday throughout the duration of lens wear, which was not possible with our in vitro protocol. This concentration was also used in an attempt to mimic more severe in vivo conditions, such as that encountered in subjects with very oily tear films, blepharitis, overnight wear, and in subjects who may not comply with their replacement frequency. The actual concentrations of each lipid used for both LTS concentrations can be seen in Table 3.

There are only a handful of researchers examining the various lipids that are found within the tear film,35–37 and it is well known that lipid concentrations between individuals or even in the same individual can vary from day to day.23,38 Therefore, only ranges or approximate percentages of the lipid types are published, and these are usually based on meibomian gland secretions39–42 and not tear film concentrations. Furthermore, very little data is known about the concentrations of individual lipids found in a healthy “normal” tear film; therefore, the concentrations used here are representative of this possible range.

Cholesterol and cholesteryl oleate were not increased in concentration as much as the other three lipids for the high concentration solution as they do not easily dissolve in aqueous solutions.43 Instead of dissolving within the solution, cholesterols tend to form micelles, which are a mass of cholesterol molecules that aggregate together in aqueous solutions so that the hydrophobic tail is “hidden” in the center of the mass.43 As a result, we were forced to limit the amount that these lipids could be increased in our high concentration LTS.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Contact Lens Incubation.

To incubate the lenses, the LTS was sonicated for 30 min at 37°C to ensure the solution was homogenous. While in the culture fume hood, 1.5 ml aliquots of LTS were placed in amber vials and one contact lens was placed in each vial via forceps, as per Mirejovsky et al.32 The vials were then incubated at 37°C with constant shaking. Lenses were soaked in the two LTS types for 2 or 5 days and compared with lenses soaked in PBS only. During incubation, lenses were kept incubated at 37°C with constant shaking. This experiment was completed in triplicate.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Wettability Assessment

After incubation, the contact lenses were removed from the sample vials using silicone-tipped forceps (taking care to remove the lens by the lens edge and ensuring that the center of the lens remained untouched) and placed anterior side down on a piece of clean lens paper for a few seconds, to remove any excess nonabsorbed or adsorbed LTS. The lens was then removed from the lens paper, using the silicone forceps, and was placed posterior side down on a custom convex mantle that mimics the lens curvature. The mantle was then placed on the Optical Contact Analyzer (Dataphysics Instruments GmbH, Filderstadt, Germany) directly underneath a syringe. A high-speed camera was focused upon both the lens and the syringe and a 5-μl drop of high performance liquid chromatography grade water was dispensed from the syringe under computer control. The drop was allowed to stabilize and then the mantle was slowly and manually raised until contact was made with the contact lens. After the water drop had settled on the contact lens surface for 2 to 3 seconds, an image of the lens and water interface was taken and saved to the computer. Because of the curved surface of the contact lens, a curved baseline profile-detection fitting algorithm software program was used to determine the angle that formed between the drop and the lens surface (SCA 20 software, Version 2.04, Build 4). The CA on the right and left of the image was determined and the mean recorded as the CA for that material. The experiment was repeated with each of the three lenses and the mean of these three (±SD) reported (Table 4). All data were considered in the statistical model (see Data Analysis).

Table 4
Table 4
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Data Analysis

All data are reported as mean ± standard deviation and range, unless otherwise indicated. The data was investigated using a three-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with incubation time, lipid concentration, and lens material as the factors and the three replicates being the repeated term. Tukey post hoc analysis was completed. In all cases, significance level was taken as p < 0.05.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The average ± SD of CAs for all nine lens materials and under all concentration and incubation conditions are reported in Table 4 and the ANOVA summary table is reported in Table 5.

Table 5
Table 5
Image Tools

The highest level interaction term of the ANOVA is significant (Table 5, time × concentration × lens_type, p < 0.001), indicating that the individual comparisons between samples is where the differences lie. Fig. 3 provides a graphical interpretation of the interactions between the variables. To investigate specific relationships, Tukey post hoc tests were conducted between all pairs of samples in the dataset.

Figure 3
Figure 3
Image Tools

The results from the graph in Fig. 3 clearly show three distinct groups, based on contact lens materials and their changes in wettability when comparing PBS against the high concentration LTS, via sessile drop CA measurements. Therefore, all Tukey post hoc results for incubation time and concentration will be examined within these groups of lens materials.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Group 1: SH Wettability

Three of the five SH lenses tested [balafilcon (BA), galyfilcon (GA), and senofilcon (SE)] had unchanging CA values of >95° throughout the entire experiment. According to the post hoc testing, no statistical difference was found between 2 and 5 days of incubation or between any concentrations of LTS (all p > 0.05). When these three individual lenses were compared with all other lens materials, for the 5 days incubation in PBS and the 5 days incubation in the high concentration LTS, no statistical difference was found between BA and GA lenses (both instances have p = 1.00). All other combinations of lens materials under these conditions were statistically significant (all p < 0.02). In other words, this SH group (BA, GA, and SE) was significantly different than all CHs and plasma-treated SHs, being unaffected by the length of incubation or the concentration of solution.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Group 2: CH Wettability

The CH materials all exhibited lower CAs after soaking in the high concentration LTS, with values typically decreasing to approximately 35°, which was significantly lower than that seen with PBS [p < 0.01, except etafilcon (ET), which was not significant]. This result can be seen graphically in Fig. 3, when comparing conventional lenses incubated in PBS and the high concentration LTS over 5 days. Although ET did not show a statistically significant difference between PBS and the high concentration LTS (p = 0.095), there was a significant difference between the low and high LTS for this lens at the 5-day point (p = 0.026), with a lower CA for the high concentration LTS.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Incubation Time Effects.

Next, the relationship between CA and time of incubation was examined for the conventional lenses. From these tests it was found that in a low and high concentration LTS, alphafilcon (AL) lenses had a significant decrease in CA over time (both p = 0.002). Omafilcon (OM) and polymacon (PO) showed no significant change in CA for the low concentration LTS over time (p = 1.00 and p = 0.886, respectively), but did for the high concentration (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.005, respectively). ET showed no significant decrease in CA over time for either solution (p > 0.05).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Concentration Effects.

When the concentration effect was examined within a time period (2 or 5 days), it is found that AL has significant lowering of CAs between 2 days PBS/high, 2 days low/high, and all combinations of the 5 days incubation concentrations (all p ≤ 0.004). For the 2 days incubation of OM, the only significant lowering of CAs was seen between the PBS and high concentration condition (p = 0.02). With 5 days of incubation, OM had lower CAs between PBS/high and low/high incubation solutions (both p = 0.0002). ET only showed significant lowering of CAs for 5 days low/high conditions (p = 0.026) and at all other incubation times and concentrations, the CA did not change (p ≥ 0.09). Finally, PO had lowered CAs for 5 days of incubation for PBS/high and low/high (p = 0.0002) only.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Comparisons Within and Between Lens Material Groups.

At 5 days of incubation in PBS, the conventional lenses were all significantly different from each other (all p ≤ 0.017), except when looking at OM/ET (p = 0.97). The conventional lenses, when compared with the untreated and plasma-treated SH lenses showed no specific trend, as some lenses had significantly different CAs, whereas others did not. When the 5-day high concentration LTS results were examined, there was no difference in CA between any of the conventional lenses (p > 0.2), but all the conventional lenses were significantly different than all SH lenses, including both treated and nontreated (all p = 0.0002).

In summary, conventional lenses were affected by the length of incubation and the concentration of incubation. The CAs for the four conventional lenses grouped into pairs with CA of approximately 95° (AL, OM) and CA of approximately 40° (ET, PO). Incubation in PBS between 2 and 5 days gave little change in CA for either pair. However, in low concentration LTS, the CAs of the pairs converged to approximately 50° at 5 days of incubation and, more markedly, converged to <40° in high concentration LTS at 5 days. This was a general trend and it is emphasized that not every condition showed significant lowering of CAs.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Group 3: Plasma-Coated SH Wettability

The plasma-coated SH materials [lotrafilcon A (LOA), lotrafilcon B (LOB)] both exhibited markedly reduced CAs after lipid exposure, particularly after 5 days incubation with the high concentration LTS, reducing the CA to <5° (p < 0.01). The wettability of LOB in PBS is illustrated in Fig. 4 and in the high concentration of LTS in Fig. 2. The dramatic difference in CA is obvious. Individual comparisons for all combinations are seen in Fig. 3.

Figure 4
Figure 4
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Incubation Time Effects.

On examining the relationship between CA and the duration of incubation (2 or 5 days) for the plasma-treated SH materials, it was found that there was no significant difference between CAs over time for either lens when incubated in PBS (p = 1.0). However, CAs did reduce over time in the low concentration LTS for LOA (p = 0.002), but not for LOB (p = 0.99). For the high concentration LTS both showed significant lowering of CAs over time (p = 0.0002).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Concentration Effects.

When the concentration effect was examined within a time period (2 or 5 days), it is found that no difference in CAs is seen for 2 days incubation between any concentration of incubation solution (all p > 0.36). For 5 days of incubation, no difference in CAs was seen for either lens between PBS and low concentration LTS. However, for comparisons between the PBS/high and low/high there were significantly lower CAs for the high concentration LTS (all p = 0.0002).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Comparisons Within and Between Lens Material Groups.

With 5 days incubation in PBS, there was no difference in CA for LOA and LOB. In addition to this, these two materials were not different from two of the conventional lenses, PO and ET (p > 0.75), but were statistically different than OM and AL (p = 0.0002). All of the treated SHs had lower CAs when compared with the untreated SH lenses (all p = 0.0002). After 5 days of incubation in the high concentration LTS, LOA and LOB had no difference in CAs (p = 1.0) but had CAs that were significantly lower than all other lenses (all p = 0.0002).

Overall, the plasma-treated SH lenses were influenced by the length and concentration of incubation, but not for every combination of variables. This group of lenses behaved significantly different than the conventional and the untreated SHs.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The lenses in this experiment seemed to behave according to their broad lens material classifications, irrespective of their relative affinity to lipid deposition. For example, it is known that group II CH lenses deposit lipid at higher quantities when compared with group I or IV lenses.23,44–47 Despite this, all CHs, no matter what the initial CAs, all had a CA of approximately 35° when they were subjected to a high concentration LTS for 5 days. All CHs had similar results for wettability, despite their individual differences in material. This decrease in CA seen for Acuvue 2 lenses, when lipid was deposited, was also seen in a previous report by Copley et al.,48 who used the captive bubble technique.

The SH contact lenses are divided into two distinct groups: those that are plasma treated and those that are not. The Bausch & Lomb balafilcon material is surface treated through a plasma oxidation process that leaves hydrophobic glassy islands.2,4,18,49,50 The CIBA Vision materials (lotrafilcon A and B) have a high refractive index thin plasma coating that gives the contact lens a highly homogenous surface.3,4,19,49,50 The two Johnson & Johnson materials (GA and SE) are TRIS-based materials, but are nonsurface treated in that they incorporate an internal wetting agent based upon polyvinyl pyrrolidone that migrates to the lens surface and acts to enhance wettability of the lens materials.20,21,51,52 The data from this experiment show that the two CIBA Vision materials behaved uniquely when compared with the other materials, regardless of whether they were siloxane based or not. This grouping of “surface-treated” and “nonsurface-treated” materials for siloxane-based lenses has also been reported in wettability research by Maldonado-Codina and Morgan.29 The two plasma-coated CIBA Vision materials began with a reasonably low CA and became completely wettable with lipid deposition. Similar increases in wettability—or decreases in CAs—were found using the captive bubble method by Copley when in vitro lipid deposited Night & Day lenses were analyzed.48

Throughout this study, it is assumed that the lipid from the LTS deposits on to the surface of the contact lens. Previous in vitro experiments in our laboratory have shown that lipid from the LTS does indeed deposit.53 The only question that we cannot answer is whether this lipid adsorbs on the surface or absorbs into the contact lens matrix.

It is hypothesized that the degree of wettability of these contact lenses, when lipid is involved, is highly dependent on the degree of penetration of lipid into the matrix. The contact lens materials that encourage lipid to penetrate deep into the matrix do not interrupt the surface chemistry of the lenses and therefore, there is no change in wettability. This may help to explain the results seen for the nonplasma-coated SH materials. The materials where lipid only slightly penetrates into the matrix, with some lipid also remaining at the surface, produce a moderate improvement in surface wettability, which may help to explain the results with the CH lens materials. We hypothesize that the plasma-coated SH lenses do not allow any (or at most very little) lipid to penetrate into the matrix, and therefore, the lipid is forced to remain on the surface of the lens, causing a significant increase in wettability. In this case, the lipid deposition must alter the surface chemistry in such a way that decreases occur in the surface tension between the tear film and the contact lens, therefore making it easier for the tear film to spread over the contact lens surface. The exact mechanism and cause for the changes in wettability remain unknown.

This was an introductory study aimed to see if lipid incubation would indeed affect the wettability of a contact lens. Now that this has been confirmed, further studies will be conducted to see which lipid species are responsible for the increased wettability. More research is required to look at the degree of penetration of specific lipids into the matrix to support our hypotheses.

The results from this experiment may help to explain why some contact lens wearers report an increase in comfort with their SH lenses in the first few hours or days of wear.54 We believe that this may occur because of certain lipids being surface deposited on certain SHs, which enhances their wettability. Eventually, the build up of lipid deposition stops being advantageous to contact lens wear and becomes deleterious, resulting in reductions in surface wettability, comfort, and vision.23

In conclusion, our data would appear to suggest that lipid deposition may play a significant beneficial role in the overall wettability and, therefore, comfort of a contact lens, for certain lens materials during the initial wearing period. Specifically, lipid deposition tends to increase wettability, as evidenced by a decrease in CA measurement, for both CH lens materials and plasma-coated SH lens materials. This may help to explain why certain SH materials improve in comfort after the first few hours or days of wear.

It is clear that more research needs to be completed to determine when lipid deposition becomes deleterious, the degree to which lipid penetrates the contact lens material, and what results when a more complex artificial tear solution is used containing proteins and mucins. Of course, in vitro experiments are not always directly representative of what is occurring in vivo, therefore, follow-up in vivo experiments should be conducted to verify and substantiate the results.

Back to Top | Article Outline


We thank Dr. Natalie Hutchings for assistance with statistical analysis of the data.

Holly Lorentz

Centre for Contact Lens Research

School of Optometry, University of Waterloo

200, University Avenue West, Waterloo

Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

e-mail: hmelchin@scimail.uwaterloo.ca

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Barr T. Contact lenses 2005. Contact Lens Spectr 2006;21:26–34.

2. Kunzler J. Silicone-based hydrogels for contact lens applications. Contact Lens Spectr 1999;14(8 suppl):9–11.

3. Nicolson PC, Vogt J. Soft contact lens polymers: an evolution. Biomaterials 2001;22:3273–83.

4. Tighe B. Silicone hydrogels: structure, properties and behavior. In: Sweeney D, ed. Silicone Hydrogels: Continuous Wear Contact Lenses, 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2004:1–27.

5. Alvord L, Court J, Davis T, Morgan CF, Schindhelm K, Vogt J, Winterton L. Oxygen permeability of a new type of high Dk soft contact lens material. Optom Vis Sci 1998;75:30–6.

6. Dumbleton KA, Chalmers RL, Richter DB, Fonn D. Changes in myopic refractive error with nine months’ extended wear of hydrogel lenses with high and low oxygen permeability. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:845–9.

7. Dumbleton KA, Chalmers RL, Richter DB, Fonn D. Vascular response to extended wear of hydrogel lenses with high and low oxygen permeability. Optom Vis Sci 2001;78:147–51.

8. Fonn D, Sweeney D, Holden BA, Cavanagh D. Corneal oxygen deficiency. Eye Contact Lens 2005;31:23–7.

9. Jalbert I, Stretton S, Naduvilath T, Holden B, Keay L, Sweeney D. Changes in myopia with low-Dk hydrogel and high-Dk silicone hydrogel extended wear. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:591–6.

10. Jones L, Dumbleton K. Soft lens extended wear and complications. In: Hom MM, Bruce AS, eds. Manual of Contact Lens Prescribing and Fitting, 3rd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Elsevier; 2006:393–441.

11. Keay L, Sweeney DF, Jalbert I, Skotnitsky C, Holden BA. Microcyst response to high Dk/t silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:582–5.

12. Sweeney D, du Toit R, Keay L, Jalbert I, Sankaridurg P, Stern J, Skotnitsky C, Stephensen A, Covey M, Holden B, Rao G. Clinical performance of silicone hydrogel lenses. In: Sweeney D, ed. Silicone Hydrogels: Continuous Wear Contact Lenses, 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2004:164–216.

13. Bruinsma GM, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Bacterial adhesion to surface hydrophilic and hydrophobic contact lenses. Biomaterials 2001;22:3217–24.

14. Cheng L, Muller SJ, Radke CJ. Wettability of silicone-hydrogel contact lenses in the presence of tear-film components. Curr Eye Res 2004;28:93–108.

15. Court JL, Redman RP, Wang JH, Leppard SW, Obyrne VJ, Small SA, Lewis AL, Jones SA, Stratford PW. A novel phosphorylcholine-coated contact lens for extended wear use. Biomaterials 2001;22:3261–72.

16. Jones L, Long J, Chen P. The impact of contact lens care regimens on the in vitro wettability of conventional and silicone-hydrogel contact lens materials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:ARVO E-abstract 3097.

17. Jones L, Senchyna M, Glasier MA, Schickler J, Forbes I, Louie D, May C. Lysozyme and lipid deposition on silicone hydrogel contact lens materials. Eye Contact Lens 2003;29:S75–9.

18. Grobe G, Kunzler J, Seelye D, Salamone J. Silicone hydrogels for contact lens applications. Polym Mater Sci Eng 1999;80:108–9.

19. Nicolson PC. Continuous wear contact lens surface chemistry and wearability. Eye Contact Lens 2003;29:S30–2.

20. Molock FF, Ford JD, Alli A, Love RN, Vanderlaan DG, Turner DC, Steffen RB, McCabe KP, Hill GA, Maiden AC. Hydrogel with internal wetting agent. US Patent 6367929. April 9, 2002.

21. McCabe KP, Molock FF, Hill GA, Alli A, Steffen RB, Vanderlaan DG, Young KA, Ford JD. Biomedical devices containing internal wetting agents. US Patent 7052131. May 30, 2006.

22. Jones L, Subbaraman L, Rogers R, Dumbleton K. Surface treatment, wetting, and modulus of silicone hydrogels. Optician 2006;232:28–34.

23. Jones L, Franklin V, 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.

24. French K. Contact lens material properties. Part 1: Wettability. Optician 2005;230:20–8.

25. Karlgard CC, Sarkar DK, Jones LW, Moresoli C, Leung KT. Drying methods for XPS analysis of PureVision, Focus Night & Day and conventional hydrogel contact lenses. Appl Surface Sci 2004;230:106–14.

26. Maldonado-Codina C, Morgan PB, Efron N, Canry JC. Characterization of the surface of conventional hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:455–60.

27. Ketelson HA, Meadows DL, Stone RP. Dynamic wettability properties of a soft contact lens hydrogel. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2005;40:1–9.

28. Tonge S, Jones L, Goodall S, Tighe B. The ex vivo wettability of soft contact lenses. Curr Eye Res 2001;23:51–9.

29. Maldonado-Codina C, Morgan PB. In vitro water wettability of silicone hydrogel contact lenses determined using the sessile drop and captive bubble techniques. J Biomed Mater Res A 2007.

30. Rogers R, Jones LW. In vitro and ex vivo wettability of pHEMA and siloxane-based contact lens polymers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;45:ARVO E-abstract 918.

31. Chao CC, Vergnes JP, Brown SI. Fractionation and partial characterization of macromolecular components from human ocular mucus. Exp Eye Res 1983;36:139–50.

32. Mirejovsky D, Patel AS, Rodriguez DD, Hunt TJ. Lipid adsorption onto hydrogel contact lens materials. Advantages of Nile red over oil red O in visualization of lipids. Optom Vis Sci 1991;68:858–64.

33. Nicolaides N. Recent finding on the chemical composition of the lipids of steer and human meibomian glands. In: Holly F, ed. The Preocular Tear Film in Health, Disease, and Contact Lens Wear. Lubbock, TX: Dry Eye Institute; 1986:570–96.

34. Prager MD, Quintana RP. Radiochemical studies on contact lens soilation. II. Lens uptake of cholesteryl oleate and dioleoyl phosphatidylcholine. J Biomed Mater Res 1997;37:207–11.

35. Saatci AO, Irkec M, Unlu N. Tear cholesterol levels in blepharitis. Ophthalmic Res 1990;22:269–70.

36. Andrews JS. Human tear film lipids. I. Composition of the principal non-polar component. Exp Eye Res 1970;10:223–7.

37. McCulley JP, Shine W. A compositional based model for the tear film lipid layer. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1997;95:79–88.

38. Jones L, Mann A, Evans K, Franklin V, Tighe B. An in vivo comparison of the kinetics of protein and lipid deposition on group II and group IV frequent-replacement contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:503–10.

39. Nicolaides N, Kaitaranta JK, Rawdah TN, Macy JI, Boswell FM III, Smith RE. Meibomian gland studies: comparison of steer and human lipids. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1981;20:522–36.

40. Nicolaides N, Santos EC, Smith RE, Jester JV. Meibomian gland dysfunction. III. Meibomian gland lipids. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1989;30:946–51.

41. Greiner JV, Glonek T, Korb DR, Booth R, Leahy CD. Phospholipids in meibomian gland secretion. Ophthalmic Res 1996;28:44–9.

42. Shine WE, McCulley JP. Polar lipids in human meibomian gland secretions. Curr Eye Res 2003;26:89–94.

43. Haberland ME, Reynolds JA. Self-association of cholesterol in aqueous solution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1973;70:2313–16.

44. Bontempo AR, Rapp J. Lipid deposits on hydrophilic and rigid gas permeable contact lenses. CLAO J 1994;20:242–5.

45. Bontempo AR, Rapp J. Protein-lipid interaction on the surface of a hydrophilic contact lens in vitro. Curr Eye Res 1997;16:776–81.

46. Bontempo AR, Rapp J. Protein and lipid deposition onto hydrophilic contact lenses in vivo. CLAO J 2001;27:75–80.

47. Jones L, Evans K, Sariri R, Franklin V, Tighe B. Lipid and protein deposition of N-vinyl pyrrolidone-containing group II and group IV frequent replacement contact lenses. CLAO J 1997;23:122–6.

48. Copley KA, Zhang Y, Radke CJ. Wettability of soft contact lenses assessed in a model blink-cycle cell. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:2407.

49. Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Lopez-Alemany A, Almeida JB, Parafita MA, Refojo MF. Microscopic observation of unworn siloxane-hydrogel soft contact lenses by atomic force microscopy. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2006;76:412–18.

50. Lopez-Alemany A, Compan V, Refojo MF. Porous structure of Purevision versus Focus Night & Day and conventional hydrogel contact lenses. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;63:319–25.

51. Steffen R, McCabe K. Finding the comfort zone. Contact Lens Spectr 2004;13(3 suppl):1–4.

52. Steffen R, Schnider C. A next generation silicone hydrogel lens for daily wear. Part 1: Material properties. Optician 2004;227:23–5.

53. Lorentz HI, Senchyna M, Jones L. Optimized procedure for the extraction of lipid deposits from silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:E-Abstract 1537.

54. Tighe B, Franklin V, Tonge S. Contact lens care. Part 3: Contact lens material and their interaction with tears. Optician 2001;221:22–8.


lipids; contact lenses; tear film; wettability; contact angle

© 2007 American Academy of Optometry


Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.