ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2025
Evaluating the initial and end-of-day wettability of contemporary daily disposable contact lenses using various in vitro methods.
Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
significanceContact lens wettability is potentially correlated with friction, which is linked to lens comfort. However, measuring wettability can be highly variable. This study assessed wettability using three techniques for a more accurate profile. PURPOSE: To evaluate the wettability of contemporary daily disposable contact lenses after 16 hours on an in vitro model using the sessile drop, captive bubble, and a novel in vit ro noninvasive keratograph breakup time (NIKBUT) method.
methodsThe wettability of six contemporary silicone hydrogel contact lens materials (verofilcon A, delefilcon A, senofilcon A, kalifilcon A, stenfilcon A, and somofilcon A) and two conventional hydrogel materials (nesofilcon A and etafilcon A) were evaluated using an in vitro blink model at t = 0 and 16 hours. The blink rates of the eye model were 20 blinks per minute. Sessile drop and captive bubble angles were analyzed using the Optical Contact Analyzer. NIKBUT was assessed on a blink model in combination with the OCULUS Keratograph 5M.
resultsThere were no significant differences in wettability for any lens types between 0 and 16 hours when assessed using the captive bubble or NIKBUT methods (p>0.05). For the sessile drop method, verofilcon A had the lowest contact angle values (36.5 ± 2.9°), and all lenses except for etafilcon A had similar wettability after 16 hours. All the lenses had similar wettability when assessed using the captive bubble method, suggesting that they had similar wettability under optimal wetting conditions. For NIKBUT, delefilcon A had the longest NIKBUT values (9.0 ± 1.0 s) after 16 hours.
conclusionsThe sessile drop technique produced the most measurable differences in wettability between different lens types, whereas the captive bubble technique was not able to provide any measurable differences between lenses. NIKBUT measurements may provide a better measure of on-eye wettability, but variability in the results using the current eye model still needs to be addressed in future studies for improved repeatability. Although the contact lenses showed different contact angles and NIKBUT results, their in vitro wettability did not significantly change over the 16 hours of simulated wear in terms of the captive bubble or NIKBUT values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.