OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interaction between tear supplements and soft contact lenses (SCLs), we measured the contact angles (CAs) on the SCLs using commercially available tear supplements. METHODS: We used four daily disposable conventional hydrogel lenses (etafilcon A, etafilcon A+ polyvinylpyrrolidone, nelfilcon A, and omafilcon A containing 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine [MPC]) and four silicone hydrogel lenses (narafilcon A, senofilcon A, delefilcon A, and stenfilcon A). The CAs on the SCLs were measured using a sessile drop technique and four different types of sessile drops, including saline, artificial tears, lubricants containing 2-MPC (MPC solution), and 0.1% hyaluronate acid (HA). RESULTS: The CA values associated with the silicone hydrogel lenses were significantly (P<0.001) lower than those associated with the conventional hydrogel lenses with all four solutions. The mean CA of 0.1% HA was significantly (P<0.01) higher than that of saline. The mean CA of the MPC solution was significantly (P<0.01) lower than that of saline with the conventional hydrogel lenses but significantly (P<0.05) higher than that of saline with the silicone hydrogel lenses. CONCLUSIONS: The CAs associated with the silicone hydrogel SCLs were higher with the use of the MPC solutions and HA in vitro. The measured CAs may depend on ingredient agents, surface treatment of the CLs, and components of the tear supplements.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interaction between tear supplements and soft contact lenses (SCLs), we measured the contact angles (CAs) on the SCLs using commercially available tear supplements. METHODS: We used four daily disposable conventional hydrogel lenses (etafilcon A, etafilcon A+ polyvinylpyrrolidone, nelfilcon A, and omafilcon A containing 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine [MPC]) and four silicone hydrogel lenses (narafilcon A, senofilcon A, delefilcon A, and stenfilcon A). The CAs on the SCLs were measured using a sessile drop technique and four different types of sessile drops, including saline, artificial tears, lubricants containing 2-MPC (MPC solution), and 0.1% hyaluronate acid (HA). RESULTS: The CA values associated with the silicone hydrogel lenses were significantly (P<0.001) lower than those associated with the conventional hydrogel lenses with all four solutions. The mean CA of 0.1% HA was significantly (P<0.01) higher than that of saline. The mean CA of the MPC solution was significantly (P<0.01) lower than that of saline with the conventional hydrogel lenses but significantly (P<0.05) higher than that of saline with the silicone hydrogel lenses. CONCLUSIONS: The CAs associated with the silicone hydrogel SCLs were higher with the use of the MPC solutions and HA in vitro. The measured CAs may depend on ingredient agents, surface treatment of the CLs, and components of the tear supplements.