Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Biomedics XC design

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
tomlev - 09 Feb 2006 02:43 GMT
Is the new biomedics xc's design the same as the biomedics premier's
design ?
(if so - it's like taking the proclear comp. lens and redesigning it
like the biomedics lens)

if somebody here is in touch with some coopervision rep, please ask him
this...

regards, TOMLEV.
Dr. Leukoma - 09 Feb 2006 04:56 GMT
Why does this interest you so?  It's a much needed attempt to solve the
tearing issue with the Proclear Compatibles.  I got my inventory a few
weeks ago.

DrG
tomlev - 09 Feb 2006 17:37 GMT
Biomedics 55 are the only lenses which I can wear comfortably (I have
tried so much other kinds of soft lenses, nothing else works).
As a person who is interested in the benefits of the PC material, I
asked if a refit biomedics wearers can try the "new" biomedics XC
lenses with high chance of success ? (or the name "biomedics XC" for
the lens is just for promoting the proclear lens' sales))

Dr. Leukoma :
> Why does this interest you so?  It's a much needed attempt to solve the
> tearing issue with the Proclear Compatibles.  I got my inventory a few
> weeks ago.
>
> DrG
Dr. Leukoma - 09 Feb 2006 19:05 GMT
The Proclear material is of more interest to me than the particular
design.  If the two lenses are indeed the same design, I will pick the
Proclear hands down.

DrG
chipster - 09 Feb 2006 21:56 GMT
Isn't the new Biomedics XC made of the same material as the
Proclear,which is Omafilcon A, with a surface technology using
phosphorylcholine (PC)? I understand that it is a lens with the same
fit as BM' s XC, but in the same material as the Proclear Compatibles,
but somehow "improved" to be a 2 week lens, whereas Proclear is a one
month lens. I am not a professional, but have been looking into the
latest things in contact lensesvia the internet, as I am going back
into them after a two year period of wearing glasses. My doctor does
not have the new XC lenses to try yet, but have tried the Biomedics
Premier and they fit me well, and have very good vision, but dry out
and "get dirty", even with drops, before my day of wearing them is up.
So far, I like the sound of the new XC lenses, and would be very
interested in knowing what the doctors think about them.

The other lens I like very much is the Acuvue Oasys, as far as comfort
and fit. The vision with the AO is not as sharp as it is with the
Biomedics Premier, but may be willing to trade off crystal clear vision
for the comfort. I am wearing only one lens monovision, and the eye
with the AO is feels more moist than the plain eye. If I start to feel
the AO lens in my eye, I put drops in, and it soothes back down,
whereas when I do that with the BMP, they don't soothe down so much.
However, if the new XC is of the Proclear material, it may just be the
lens for me, comfort & vision wise.
Dr. Leukoma - 10 Feb 2006 00:47 GMT
Yes, of course the Biomedics XC is made of omafilcon A, the same as the
Proclear Compatibles.  The base curve and diameter are slightly
different, and it is probably also a thicker lens, judging by the look
and feel.

DrG
tomlev - 10 Feb 2006 21:49 GMT
does anybody have some information about coopervision's Biofinity
lenses (intended to be launched in july this year) ?
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Feb 2006 03:26 GMT
All I know is that it will be a silicone-phosphorylcholine-hydrogel.

DrG
Beermonster - 13 Feb 2006 00:09 GMT
Check out the info in the 510k summary
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf5/K052560.pdf

Silicone hydrogel
No surface treatment
water content 48%
Dk 128
Modulus 0.8 MPa

No indication anywhere that this may have phosphorylcholine in it.

Before OSI were acquired by Coopers, they were quite advanced with a
non-surface treated silicone hydrogel, and this is likely to be that lens.

> does anybody have some information about coopervision's Biofinity
> lenses (intended to be launched in july this year) ?
Quick - 14 Feb 2006 17:57 GMT
Would someone please summarize "surface
treatment" in a paragraph or so?

I'm *assuming* that something is done to the
surface chemically (mechanically?) to alter the
surface as opposed to the basic material.

Just on the inside? Solely for comfort? Optical?
Mechanical properties? I'm guessing the downside
would be tradeoffs with permeability? durability?

thanks,
-Quick

> Check out the info in the 510k summary
> http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf5/K052560.pdf
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>> Biofinity lenses (intended to be launched in july this
>> year) ?
Mike Tyner - 14 Feb 2006 18:53 GMT
> Would someone please summarize "surface
> treatment" in a paragraph or so?

The actual method used with contacts is probably closely-guarded and
proprietary.

Some materials with fantastic oxygen permeability, like silicone, are so
water-repellant that water beads up on the surface. The lenses would be
uncomfortable and cloudy because tears wouldn't coat the surface, instead
attracting an oily coating from the outer tear layer.

So the treatment has to be applied to the entire surface, but I don't know
specifically how it's done with contacts. Gas-plasma treatment is one widely
used method for silicone medical devices like implants and stents. See
http://www.anatechltd.com/plasma_surface_treatment/default.html for some
details of one process.

The treatment usually extends only a few molecules into the surface, so the
least abrasion or scratch may ruin the effect. Years ago there was a
silicone-latex lens with this quality. The newer treatments seem to be more
durable.

-MT
Quick - 14 Feb 2006 19:49 GMT
Great!  Thanks Mike.

-Quick

>> Would someone please summarize "surface
>> treatment" in a paragraph or so?
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> -MT
doctor_my_eye@msn.com - 19 Feb 2006 03:29 GMT
Manufacturers have attempted to use silicone in contact lenses for
nearly thirty years.  While silicone has great oxygen transmissibility,
it has a feature that makes it a difficult material to make contacts
out of.  That specific feature is a hydrophobic tail on the end of the
molecule that repels water.  The science of creating "surface
treatments" has involved the coating of that hydrophobic tail to make
it water-loving.  Then a treated lens is scratched or abraded, the
hydrophobic surface can be exposed, causing dry spots on the lens.  The
CIBA products (Night & Day, 02Optix) are proprietary surface treatments
that are the best treatments yet.    But, Johnson & Johnson "attacked"
the problem differently.  They created a proprietary molecule, which
they are calling "Hydroclear".  The Hydroclear is added to the
silicone, and it binds to the hydrophobic tail and replaces it with a
hydrophillic (water-loving) one.  Supposedly every single silicone
molecule in the lens has this new tail, hence there is no way to
"scratch" off a coating and expose a naked hydrophobic tail.
The concept behind "Oasis" is that the Oasis is "Acuvue Advance" with
twice as much Hydroclear.  That's a bit of a stretch, but Oasis learns
a totally different material name than Advance does, as each exposed
hydrophobic silicone tail is now replaced with not one but two
hydrophyllic tails.  This makes the lens "softer" and more water
loving.  It was noted in another thread here that the optics of the
Oasis "seemed worse" to some of the posters.  Well, as the lens gives
up its strength when all these water-loving tails become the slimey
"backbone" of the lens.  A stiffer lens masks or hides small amounts of
astigmatism, a really soft lens can't mask those small distortions.
Hence, the Oasis is incredibly confortable but you better have a
spherical cornea to wear it.

The development of "Hydroclear" as an additive has brought two
interesting issues to the world of contact lens design.  First, a
company has to be filthy rich with a huge R&D budget to even consider
locking a bunch of chemists in a room and leaving them there until they
change the periodic table and reinvent silicone.
Secondly, this has opened the idea of new molecules to be added to
those newly bound-up silicone tails.  I recently joined a discussion
group in which the major topic was whether or not Johnson and Johnson
should market a new idea...putting silver in the matrix of their next
Acuvue.  Silver, as a naturally occurring metal, has been known to have
bacteriostatic properties for over a hundred years.  What kid hasn't
left the delivery room without silver nitrate in his eyes to avoid
infection after a vaginal delivery.   Or how about silver-based nose
paints that surfers use to help protect from sun and windburn?  The
possibilities are endless.  If a soft contact lens actually can be
created that is toxic to bacteria but  100% safe to the cornea, the
idea of truly safe contact lens wear will be reached.
chipster - 20 Feb 2006 20:37 GMT
Doctor my eye,

What a great post. This totally makes sense. Thanks!

Chipster
chipster - 15 Feb 2006 02:35 GMT
> Yes, of course the Biomedics XC is made of omafilcon A, the same as the
> Proclear Compatibles.  The base curve and diameter are slightly
> different, and it is probably also a thicker lens, judging by the look
> and feel.
>
> DrG

Thanks very much for your reply,
Chipster
LarryDoc - 15 Feb 2006 16:47 GMT
> > Yes, of course the Biomedics XC is made of omafilcon A, the same as the
> > Proclear Compatibles.  The base curve and diameter are slightly
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Thanks very much for your reply,
> Chipster

And as an extra added bonus, the lenses contain aspheric optics which
for many people means crisper vision.  For early presbyopes, perhaps
decent near vision without near vision specs, too.

LB, O.D.
chipster - 15 Feb 2006 02:36 GMT
> Yes, of course the Biomedics XC is made of omafilcon A, the same as the
> Proclear Compatibles.  The base curve and diameter are slightly
> different, and it is probably also a thicker lens, judging by the look
> and feel.
>
> DrG

Thanks very much for your reply,
Chipster
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.