Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Comparison of Silicone Hydrogel and Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lenses

Diec, Jennie, B.Optom.; Tilia, Daniel, M.Optom.; Thomas, Varghese, M.Biostat.

doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000363
Article: PDF Only

Objective: To compare subjective, objective and safety performance of silicone hydrogel (SiHy) daily disposable (DD) with hydrogel (Hy) DD contact lenses.

Method: Retrospective analysis on approximately 40 participants (Px) each in 5 trials. Lenses grouped into SiHy (delefilcon A, somofilcon A, narafilcon A) and Hy (omafilcon A, nelfilcon A). Participants attended follow-up visits at baseline, 2 weeks, 1 and 3 months. Subjective ratings (1–10 scale), adverse events (percentage of Px), physiological variables (0–4 scale), and wearing time were collected at each visit and compared between groups.

Result: Trials enrolled 201 Px totally. No differences in age, sex, and lens wear experience were found between SiHy and Hy groups (P≥0.09). There was greater increase in limbal redness from baseline in Hy group (0.18±0.38 vs. 0.02±0.47, P<0.001), whereas conjunctival staining and indentation were less in Hy group (P<0.001). No differences in comfortable wearing time were found between groups (P=0.41), and comfort at insertion, during day, and end of day was also no different (P≥0.71). Incidence of corneal infiltrative events (SiHy vs. Hy: 6.7% vs. 2.5%; P=0.32) and mechanical adverse events (SiHy vs. Hy: 0.0% vs. 0.0%; P=1.00) were no different.

Conclusion: Though some statistical significance was found between the groups, these differences were within measurement error. Neither material types showed superiority in comfort, and adverse event rates were low with both material types. These findings suggest that choice of material is a patient and practitioner preference; however, for patients at risk of hypoxia-related complications, SiHy materials should be considered.

Brien Holden Vision Institute (J.D., D.T., V.T.), Sydney, Australia; and School of Optometry and Vision Science (D.T.), UNSW, Sydney, Australia.

Address correspondence to Jennie Diec, B.Optom., Level 5, Rupert Myers Building, North Wing, Gate 14, Barker Street, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia; e-mail:

The authors have no conflict of interests to disclose.

Trials were funded by the Brien Holden Vision Institute.

Accepted December 12, 2016

© 2018 Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc.