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 / July 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Boston ES EO XO

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Mike - 26 Jul 2006 15:35 GMT
What's the difference in thickness of these three lens?
Jan - 26 Jul 2006 16:04 GMT
Mike schreef:
> What's the difference in thickness of these three lens?

These are only RGP material types for contactlenses , not RGP lens types.
Anon E. Muss - 27 Jul 2006 06:27 GMT
>What's the difference in thickness of these three lens?

In general, the higher the Dk/L of the material, the more stable the
lens will be at a particular center thickness.

Therefore *in general*, RGPs made out of ES can be made thinner than
EO which in turn can be made thinner than the XO.

There's more to it than that, but that, in essence answers your
question.
CatmanX - 28 Jul 2006 23:07 GMT
With the exception of KC lenses, there is no need for anything other
than XO for any patient. KC lenses need the structural rigidity of
something like ES or EO, but XO is so much higher in Dk, there is no
point in anything else (unless you use Menicon Z, which is a brilliant
material)

dr grant
Anon E. Muss - 29 Jul 2006 06:15 GMT
>With the exception of KC lenses, there is no need for anything other
>than XO for any patient. KC lenses need the structural rigidity of
>something like ES or EO, but XO is so much higher in Dk, there is no
>point in anything else (unless you use Menicon Z, which is a brilliant
>material)

Wettability and durability with the higher Dk/l materials are not as
good in theory, and my experience in general confirms that.

I typically use the lower Dk/L RGP materials, especially with low
power DW RGP wearers or thin designs, such as a Polycon II clone.

I am not a fan of Menicon Z material.  The hydrophilic coating wears
off too fast and it requires you use a special cleaner (Claris) that
is hard to find in stores.  Sure, you can use Boston or Lobob daily
cleaner on it, but then it becomes unwettable in a matter of 3 months.

Tried FP150, same thing.  It becomes unwettable rapidly and needs to
be kept meticulously clean or it becomes hydrophobic and unwettable.
Patients complained it would cloud up constantly.

I don't worry about Dk/L as much in RGP wearers as I do for SCL
wearers for a couple reasons (at least):

1.  A lot bigger number, both in absolute numbers and in percentages,
of my patients sleep in their SCLs vs their RGPs.
2.  RGPs move better than SCLs, have better tear circulation under the
lens and with their smaller OADs I have less patient hypoxia
complications.

IOW, RGP materials have certainly come a long way in their Dk/L, but
the performance of these higher Dk/L materials leaves a lot to be
desired still IMHO.

The holy grail of RGP materials is one that has high Dk/L but performs
like PMMA.

Rate this thread:






 
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.