Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2006
Biomedics XC design
|
|
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
|
|
|