Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2025
The impact of various daily disposable contact lens materials on contrast sensitivity.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tabakci Burcu Nurözler, Güler Seda Duran, Varan Gül, Aksöz Petek, Yildirim Yusuf
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effects of three different daily disposable contact lens materials on contrast sensitivity.
METHODS: The participants were aged 18-45 years, with spherical equivalent refraction between -0.50 D and -6.00 D, astigmatism below 0.75 D, and best contact lens-corrected visual acuity of 0.0 logMAR or better. Each patient was fitted binocularly with three daily disposable contact lenses made of different materials on three separate examination days. These materials were kalifilcon A, senofilcon A, and verofilcon A. The contrast sensitivity of each patient was recorded at spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) under photopic (85 cd/m2) and mesopic (3 cd/m2) conditions.
RESULTS: The current study comprised 72 eyes of 34 female and two male patients. The mean age of the participants was 25.63 (± 0.80) years. Under photopic conditions, the participants' contrast sensitivity was significantly better with senofilcon A than with kalifilcon A at a frequency of 12 cpd (p=0.008). Under mesopic conditions, participants' contrast sensitivity was significantly higher with kalifilcon A than verofilcon A at 3 cpd (p=0.001), and with senofilcon A than verofilcon A at 12 cpd (p=0.004). The pre-lens non-invasive break-up times did not differ significantly between the three daily disposable contact lenses (p>0.05).
CONCLUSION: In both photopic and mesopic lighting conditions, the participants in this study exhibited differences in contrast sensitivity when wearing three different daily disposable contact lens types, despite similar visual acuity and pre-lens tear film stability results in their clinical evaluations. These findings demonstrate the potential for subjective visual complaints arising from variations in the contrast sensitivity achieved by different daily disposable contact lenses.
METHODS: The participants were aged 18-45 years, with spherical equivalent refraction between -0.50 D and -6.00 D, astigmatism below 0.75 D, and best contact lens-corrected visual acuity of 0.0 logMAR or better. Each patient was fitted binocularly with three daily disposable contact lenses made of different materials on three separate examination days. These materials were kalifilcon A, senofilcon A, and verofilcon A. The contrast sensitivity of each patient was recorded at spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) under photopic (85 cd/m2) and mesopic (3 cd/m2) conditions.
RESULTS: The current study comprised 72 eyes of 34 female and two male patients. The mean age of the participants was 25.63 (± 0.80) years. Under photopic conditions, the participants' contrast sensitivity was significantly better with senofilcon A than with kalifilcon A at a frequency of 12 cpd (p=0.008). Under mesopic conditions, participants' contrast sensitivity was significantly higher with kalifilcon A than verofilcon A at 3 cpd (p=0.001), and with senofilcon A than verofilcon A at 12 cpd (p=0.004). The pre-lens non-invasive break-up times did not differ significantly between the three daily disposable contact lenses (p>0.05).
CONCLUSION: In both photopic and mesopic lighting conditions, the participants in this study exhibited differences in contrast sensitivity when wearing three different daily disposable contact lens types, despite similar visual acuity and pre-lens tear film stability results in their clinical evaluations. These findings demonstrate the potential for subjective visual complaints arising from variations in the contrast sensitivity achieved by different daily disposable contact lenses.