| Literature DB >> 34960869 |
Chen-Ying Su1, Lung-Kun Yeh2,3, Yi-Fei Tsao1, Wen-Pin Lin4,5, Chiun-Ho Hou2,3, Hsueh-Fang Huang4, Chi-Chun Lai2,3, Hsu-Wei Fang1,6.
Abstract
Orthokeratology lenses are commonly used for myopia control, especially in children. Tear lipids and proteins are immediately adsorbed when the lens is put on the cornea, and protein deposition may cause discomfort or infection. Therefore, we established an in vitro protein deposition analysis by mimicking the current cleaning methods for orthokeratology lens wearers for both short-term and long-term period. The results showed that the amounts of tear proteins accumulated daily and achieved a balance after 14 days when the lens was rubbed to clean or not. Protein deposition also affected the optical characteristics of the lens regardless of cleaning methods. Our results provided an in vitro analysis for protein deposition on the lens, and they may provide a potential effective method for developing care solutions or methods that can more effectively remove tear components from orthokeratology lenses.Entities:
Keywords: optical characteristics; orthokeratology lens; protein deposition; rubbing
Year: 2021 PMID: 34960869 PMCID: PMC8707220 DOI: 10.3390/polym13244318
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
The concentration of each component in artificial tear solution.
| Category | Component | Stock Concentration (mg/mL) | Final Concentration in Artificial Tear Solution (mg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complex of salt solution | Sodium chloride | N.A. | 5.26 |
| Potassium chloride | 1.19 | ||
| Sodium citrate | 0.44 | ||
| Glucose | 0.036 | ||
| Urea | 0.072 | ||
| Calcium chloride | 0.07 | ||
| Sodium carbonate | 1.27 | ||
| Potassium hydrogen carbonate | 0.30 | ||
| Sodium phosphate dibasic | 3.41 | ||
| Hydrochloric acid | 0.94 | ||
| ProClin 300 | 200 μL/liter of solution | ||
| Lipid stock solution | Oleic acid | 3.6 | 0.0018 |
| Oleic acid methyl ester | 24.0 | 0.012 | |
| Triolein | 32.0 | 0.016 | |
| Cholesterol | 3.6 | 0.0018 | |
| Cholesteryl oleate | 48.0 | 0.024 | |
| Phosphatidylcholine | 1.0 | 0.0005 | |
| Protein | Lysozyme | N.A. | 2.0 |
| Albumin | 0.2 |
N.A.: Non applicable.
Figure 1The procedure of protein deposition analysis. One completed cycle is from step 1 to step 3.
Figure 2The concentration of protein deposition on the ortho-K lens in the absence of lipids (gray bars) or in the presence of lipids (white bars). *** p < 0.001 when comparing protein deposition amount in the absence of lipids versus in the presence of lipids. ## p < 0.01 when comparing the deposition amount of lysozyme versus albumin. Error bars represented standard deviation.
Figure 3The concentration of protein deposition is accumulated when the lens is not rubbed (white or dark gray bars) or is rubbed (black or light gray bars) for cleaning. ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001 when comparing protein deposition amount with lysozyme concentration on the lens without rubbing. && p < 0.01 and &&& p < 0.001 when comparing albumin deposition on no ribbing lens versus lysozyme deposition on rubbing lens. # p < 0.05, ## p < 0.01, and ### p < 0.001 when comparing albumin deposition on the lens without rubbing versus with rubbing. $ p < 0.05 when comparing lysozyme versus albumin deposition on the lens with rubbing. Error bars represented standard deviation.
Figure 4Deposited lysozyme concentrations are measured after the lens after one cycle of procedure. The lens is either not rubbed (gray bars) or rubbed (white bars) at the end of one cycle. The difference is statistically significant (p < 0.001) when comparing lysozyme deposition concentration on no rubbing versus rubbing lenses on the same day. Error bars represented standard deviation.
Figure 5Pictures of lens surface after 30 cycles of protein deposition procedure when the lens was not rubbed (A) or rubbed (B) at the end of each cycle.
Optical specifications of each tested lens before and after 30 cycles of protein deposition procedure.
| Cleaning Method | Item | Before | After | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BC (mm) | CT (mm) | PW (degree) | BC (mm) | CT (mm) | PW (degree) | Contact Angle (°) | ||
| No rubbing | 1 | 8.60 | 0.23 | +0.69 | 8.60 | 0.23 | +0.66 | 15.09 |
| 2 | 8.73 | 0.22 | +0.77 | 8.72 | 0.22 | +0.71 | 23.71 | |
| 3 | 9.11 | 0.23 | +1.10 | 9.10 | 0.23 | +1.11 | 13.02 | |
| Rubbing | 1 | 9.01 | 0.24 | +0.93 | 8.92 # | 0.24 | +0.74 | 80.29 |
| 2 | 8.57 | 0.23 | +0.76 | 8.57 | 0.24 | +0.76 | 64.56 | |
| 3 | 8.71 | 0.21 | −0.62 | 8.71 | 0.24 # | −0.48 | 52.32 | |
BC: base curve; CT: central thickness; PW: power. # The measured data were out of tolerance.
Optical transmission of each tested lens before and after 30 cycles of protein deposition procedure.
| Cleaning Method | Item | Before | After | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VIS | UVA | UVB | VIS | UVA | UVB | ||
| No Rubbing | 1 | 83.85 | 12.63 | 0.734 | 85.18 | 12.86 | 0.779 |
| 2 | 88.06 | 13.96 | 1.061 | 83.26 | 12.89 | 0.909 | |
| 3 | 82.98 | 12.24 | 0.677 | 76.69 | 11.52 | 0.785 | |
| Rubbing | 1 | 87.86 | 13.55 | 0.831 | 78.19 | 10.74 | 0.523 |
| 2 | 84.99 | 12.37 | 0.629 | 83.41 | 12.26 | 0.675 | |
| 3 | 84.12 | 13.44 | 0.987 | 83.73 | 13.23 | 1.014 | |
VIS: vision light; UVA: ultraviolet A light; UVB: ultraviolet B light.