Subjective comparison of 2 daily disposable contact lenses: Focus Dailies^® with AquaRelease™ and Proclear^® 1-Day

Article Outline

• Abstract
• Methods
• Results
  • Overall characteristics of the study group
  • Assessment of ocular health
  • Assessment of contact lens handling
  • Assessment of contact lens comfort
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• Disclaimer
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix 1. 
• Appendix 2. 
• References
• Copyright

Abstract 

Background

Focus Dailies® with AquaRelease™ (CIBA Vision, Duluth, Georgia) is the daily disposable contact lens currently with the highest market share. Proclear® 1-Day (CooperVision, Irvine, California) is a new introduction into the daily disposable market. This study compares the subjective preference of these 2 lenses in an independent, head-to-head comparison.

Methods

Forty-one subjects were fit successfully with both brands of daily disposable contact lenses. Subjects wore the lenses for 10 consecutive days. The subjects were surveyed after the 10 days of wear to determine which lens was preferred in terms of comfort, handling, and overall preference.

Results

Surveys were collected from 40 subjects. Twenty-four of 40 chose Proclear 1-Day as more comfortable at the end of the day (P = 0.0003). Nineteen of 40 chose Proclear 1-Day as their overall preference (P = 0.0364).

Conclusion

This study found that Proclear 1-Day was subjectively preferred for end-of-the day comfort and overall preference when compared with the Focus Dailies with AquaRelease or no preference. The authors hope this will give insight to eye care practitioners when deciding which daily disposable contact lens to fit.

Keywords: Daily disposable contact lenses, Proclear® 1-Day, Focus Dailies® with AquaRelease™, Omafilcon A, Nelfilcon A, Comfort

Contact lenses are prescribed for 2 million people in the world.¹ In the United States, daily disposables make up only 1% of new soft daily wear fits.² However, this category of contact lens has been growing rapidly. Four major contact lens companies now have a daily disposable contact lens in the U.S. market. Knowing which daily disposable lens provides the best vision, comfort, and fit is beneficial to both optometrists and patients.

Daily disposable contacts were first introduced to the United States in 1995 by Vistakon (Jacksonville, Florida).³ Previously known as lenses that provide comfort and convenience, daily disposables are now becoming known for 2 additional characteristics, compliance and cost. These combined characteristics are known as the 4 Cs of daily disposable contact lenses, originally conceptualized by Curtis.³ This study is concerned with 1 of the 4 Cs: comfort.

A 3-year comparison study found that daily disposable wearers experience fewer symptoms (grittiness/dirty sensations, blurred vision) and overall better vision and satisfaction than conventional and monthly replacement lens users. Daily disposable lens wear also proved to be the most trouble-free contact lens modality in studies by Solomon et al.⁴ and Nason et al.⁵

Daily disposable contact lenses benefit patients with dry eyes by providing a fresh clean lens every day, decreasing the amount of artificial tears needed, and providing increased comfort. The prelens tear film (PLTF) is an important factor in contact lens dryness. Thai et al.⁶ found that omafilcon A (Proclear^® Compatibles; CooperVision, Irvine, California) had more consistent PLTF composition and slower evaporation of the PLTF. Lemp et al.⁷ showed that subjects wearing Proclear Compatibles lenses experienced better comfort and fewer symptoms of dryness than while wearing their own daily wear lenses. These researchers also noted lower incidence of dehydration of the lens on the eye and less corneal staining with sodium fluorescein.⁷

Focus Dailies^® with AquaRelease™ (CIBA Vision, Duluth, Georgia) are made from a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)-containing material, nelfilcon A. PVA is the basis for a number of rewetting drops and artificial tears. According to Nick et al.,⁸ “Focus Dailies with AquaRelease has 5 times the amount of PVA available for release compared with the original Focus Dailies with the intent to provide further comfort enhancement.” This PVA is released over time throughout the day.

Allergies affect more than 50 million Americans and lead to symptoms such as ocular itching, tearing, and redness.⁹ Comparison studies of ocular allergy symptoms were done on daily disposable and conventional contact lenses. Hayes et al.⁹ hypothesized that daily disposable wearers who were allergy sufferers were theorized as having increased comfort, vision, and wear time as well as decreased side effects. Sixty-seven percent of the contact lens wearers studied had improved comfort with daily replacement contact lenses over their previous lenses. In their study, 2 of 3 allergy sufferers agreed that daily replacement contact lenses increased their comfort of wear of contact lenses.⁹

Daily wear contact lenses with replacement schedules greater than 1 day must be cleaned with disinfecting solution. Bacteria and deposits on a contact lens can increase the risk of infection. Cleaning solutions are made to disinfect and clean the lens. Alongi et al.¹⁰ found in some cases that 15–day wear contact lenses were less comfortable than daily disposable contact lenses because of lens cleaning systems. Use of contact lens solution was found to damage the ocular surface and change the normal bacterial flora on the cornea. The changes of this normal flora on the eye were not shown with daily disposable contact lenses.

In April 2007, CooperVision released a new daily disposable contact lens, Proclear 1-Day.¹¹ This lens is very similar to Proclear Compatibles, another CooperVision hydrogel. Both lenses are made of omafilcon A, with Proclear Compatibles containing 62% water and Proclear 1-Day containing 60% water. Because it is a new lens, independent research studies comparing Proclear 1-Day with other daily disposable contact lenses are not readily available.

Focus Dailies with AquaRelease daily disposable contact lens leads the daily disposable market in lens sales (unpublished data). The original Focus Dailies was released in 1997; Focus Dailies with AquaRelease was released in April 2006.¹² This lens is worthy of comparison studies because of its position in the daily disposable contact lens market.

This study compares subjective preferences between Proclear 1-Day and Focus Dailies with AquaRelease in an independent, head-to-head, double-blind, contralateral lens wear study. Table 1 lists parameters of each of the lenses.

Table 1. Parameters of lenses used in this study

Back to Article Outline

Methods 

Approval of the use of human subjects was obtained from the Northeastern State University Institutional Review Board before beginning the study. The subjects met the following requirements to complete the study: 18 to 40 years of age, contact lens prescription between −0.25 diopters (D) and −7.00 D with −0.75 D or less of residual astigmatism, visual acuities correctable to 20/20 or better in both eyes, a healthy anterior segment with no signs of corneal disease, and no history of contact lens wear discontinuation because of contact lens–related complications. The subjects were recruited by the 2 principal research investigators. The investigators recruited optometry students attending Northeastern State University Oklahoma College of Optometry (NSUOCO). All data were collected from April 9, 2008, to May 10, 2008.

Each subject was required to visit the NSUOCO one time for a contact lens evaluation. The evaluation included the following: informed consent, prestudy questionnaire, eligibility verification, contact lens selection and insertion, evaluation of contact lenses, and dispensing of study lenses to subjects. When each subject arrived to the evaluation, an identification number was assigned to be used throughout the study. A copy of the informed consent was given to each subject to read and sign for our records. An additional copy of the informed consent form was offered to the subjects for them to keep.

Each subject was asked to fill out a prestudy questionnaire (see Appendix 1). The prestudy questionnaire asked about previous contact lens history and any dry eye syndrome or ocular allergy history. Reports of any past discontinuation of contact lens wear because of corneal disease resulted in the subject being excluded from participation.

Eligibility verification of each subject was determined using a brief ocular examination. This examination included autorefraction/autokeratometry using a Marco NIDEK ARK-900 (Marco, Jacksonville, Florida). These results were used as the starting point to complete a subjective refraction on both eyes at a distance of 6 meters. Subjects underwent refraction to the nearest 0.25 D for both sphere and cylinder. The best-corrected visual acuity was measured and was required to be at least 20/20 in each eye. A Carl Zeiss Meditec AG slit lamp (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California) was used to examine the anterior segment of both eyes to rule out any current ocular contraindications to soft contact lens wear.

The tear break-up time (TBUT), corneal staining, corneal edema, corneal neovascularization greater than 0.5 mm, conjunctiva, contact lens papillary conjunctivitis (CLPC), and current state of the lids were evaluated. Corneal staining and TBUT were evaluated by using FUL GLO Fluorescein Sodium Sterile Ophthalmic Strips 0.6 mg (Akorn, Inc., Buffalo Grove, Illinois). The strip was wetted by using 1 drop of SoftWear Sensitive Eyes Sterile Saline (CIBA Vision). The staining, CLPC, and injection of the conjunctiva were graded by using the Institute for Eye Research (ABN 49 081 303 282) Grading Scales handouts. The scales vary from 0 to 4. One is considered as very slight and 4 is considered severe.

To calculate the appropriate spherical contact lens power for both eyes, a modified equivalent equation was utilized. When subjects exhibited −0.25 to −0.50 D of refractive cylinder one-quarter diopter more minus, then the spherical component of the subjective refraction was used as the starting point for the contact lens power. Subjects who exhibited -0.75 diopters of refractive cylinder were given one-half diopter more minus than the spherical component of their subjective refractive as the starting point for the contact lens power.

The participants were assigned randomly 1 of the 2 lens brands to each of their eyes. This was done by the faculty advisor; therefore, neither investigator had any part or knew which contact was worn on either eye during the preliminary evaluation. The faculty advisor had each subject flip a coin. Heads was designated as Focus Dailies with AquaRelease on the right eye (with Proclear 1-Day on the left), and tails was designated as Proclear 1-Day on the right eye (with Focus Dailies with AquaRelease on the left eye). The contact lens power found previously was placed on the designated eyes by the faculty advisor. The subjects were allowed to sit for 5 to 7 minutes to let the contact lenses settle.

The final phase of the examination started with taking visual acuities through the contacts. If the vision was not 20/20 or better in either eye, an over-refraction was performed with the contact lenses on the subject. If the visual acuities could be improved by the over-refraction results, the lenses were changed by the faculty advisor, and visual acuities were taken again. Once visual acuities were 20/20 or better in both eyes, and within 3 letters between the eyes, a slit lamp evaluation (with a Carl Zeiss Meditec AG slit lamp) of the contact lenses was completed. The lenses were evaluated for fit, including both centration and movement. The lens must have moved a minimum of 0.25 mm and must have been centered over the cornea for the subject to continue participation in the study.

After the final evaluation, 10 pairs of unused, unexpired, concealed contacts were distributed to each subject at the beginning of the study. The distributed contact lens samples were covered with black electrical tape to conceal the brand from the subject. Each lens was labeled left (L) and right (R) with a permanent marker. Figure 1 displays the contact lenses as masked. Subjects were asked to wear the contacts for the next 10 consecutive days. They were provided a handout that noted factors to pay attention to during the following days of wear. The factors listed were those that the subjects would be asked about in the poststudy questionnaire.

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Figure 1 

  Focus Dailies with AquaRelease and Proclear 1-Day Daily Disposable Contact Lenses as they appeared masked to the subjects.

Each subject was also distributed a 12-oz bottle of SoftWear Sensitive Eyes Sterile Saline (CIBA Vision) to use if lens rinsing was necessary. The investigators instructed subjects not to use other solutions during the 10 days of wear.

At the end of the 10 days, the subjects were called for the telephone poststudy questionnaire. Each available subject was asked a few questions regarding the lenses that had been worn. If a subject was unavailable at the time of the first call, the investigators left a message or called again the next day. Poststudy questionnaires (see Appendix 2) were used to determine which of the 2 lenses the subjects preferred during the time the contacts were worn. It also evaluated if they had discontinued wear for any reason or changed medications and how many hours a day they wore the contacts. Right-tailed z tests were used to analyze the data.

Back to Article Outline

Results 

Overall characteristics of the study group 

Forty of the 41 subjects initially enrolled, consisting of 22 women and 18 men, completed the study. One participant discontinued wear after 2 days because of ocular irritation that was not attributable to contact lens wear. This subject's data is not included in the results. Before the study only 5 of the 40 reported no history of wearing contact lenses. No subjects were excluded based on the information from the prestudy questionnaire.

Through randomized selection, 17 Proclear 1-Day lenses were fitted on the right eyes of subjects and 23 Focus Dailies with AquaRelease lenses were fit on the right eyes of subjects. The left eyes of each subject were fitted with the alternate lens design.

Assessment of ocular health 

Of 8 participants who were observed to have CLPC greater than grade 1, 62.5% (5 of 8 subjects) chose Proclear 1-Day compared with 12.5% (1 of 8 subjects) who chose Focus Dailies with AquaRelease. Two of the 8 subjects had no overall preference. The 2 subjects who reported ocular allergies in their prestudy questionnaire reported no difference in overall preference between the 2 lenses.

Upon admission to the study, no subjects reported dry eye syndrome in the prestudy questionnaire. And, the corneal staining found was very low, with only 4 subjects found to have corneal staining of grade 1 based on the Institute for Eye Research Grading Scales. The highest grade was noted to be grade 1 in type, extent, and depth. The areas of the staining did vary by subject, but most of the staining was found in areas 1, 2, and 5. Two of these subjects chose Proclear 1-Day, and 2 chose no difference in their overall preference of lenses.

Assessment of contact lens handling 

In the poststudy questionnaire, one subject reported tearing of a lens. The subject reported the tearing occurred only one time, and it was found to be a Focus Dailies with AquaRelease lens. Nine subjects reported problems with lenses folding during the study. Eight of the 9 subjects who reported a folding problem reported it to occur in the eye with the Focus Dailies with AquaRelease lens. Numbers of times the lenses folded varied from only 2 to 3 times to one subject reporting the lens folded up all 10 times when inserting the Focus Dailies with AquaRelease lens.

Assessment of contact lens comfort 

Seven subjects reported discontinuation of the lenses at one point during the study. The following are the reasons for discontinuation. Two subjects reported that the lenses would pop out of their eyes after a period of wear; one reported it occurring every day after 4 hours of wear. Another subject reported various times the lens would pop out of the eye for no apparent reason. Both subjects reported that it occurred in the eye wearing the Focus Dailies with AquaRelease lens. A third subject reported that at one point during the wear one of the lenses it was so irritating that it was removed; this was also found to be a Focus Dailies with AquaRelease lens. Lastly, one subject had to discontinue wear of both lenses for part of one day because of seasonal allergy issues.

The numbers of hours the contact lenses were worn each day per subject varied from 4 to 17 hours. The average number of hours was 12.05 hours per day, and the median was 12.00 hours per day. The number of hours worn was not shown to be predictive of lens choice for the end of day comfort.

Differences were found in the amount of lens movement on the eyes. Proclear 1-Day was found 42.5% of the time to move 0.25 mm more with the blink than Focus Dailies with AquaRelease. During the remaining 57.5% of evaluations the lenses appeared to move the same amount, rounded to the nearest 0.25 mm. A few subjects reported one contact lens moved around on the eye more than the other. The difference in movement and centration between the 2 contact lenses needs to be investigated further.

Each subject was asked to indicate if there was a preference for the Proclear 1-Day lens, the Focus Dailies with AquaRelease lens, or no difference (indicating no preference) for both end-of-the-day comfort and overall preference. Right-tailed z tests were utilized to compare the proportion of subjects choosing Proclear 1-Day with the hypothesized value of one third for these 2 preference areas. A majority of subjects, 60% (24 of 40 subjects), chose Proclear 1-Day as the contact lens that provided the best end-of-the-day comfort; this proportion was statistically significant higher than one third (z = 3.44; P = 0.0003). Dailies was chosen by 20% (8 of 40 subjects), and no preference was chosen by 20% (8 of 40 subjects). For overall preference, excluding vision as a component, 47.5% (19 of 40 subjects) chose Proclear 1-Day. This proportion was statistically significantly greater than one third (z = 1.79; P = 0.0364). Dailies was chosen by 22.5% (9 of 40 subjects), and no preference was chosen by 30% (12 of 40 subjects). See Figure 2, Figure 3 for pie charts of these data.

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Figure 2 

  Percentage of subjects choosing each lens for comfort at the end of the day.

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Figure 3 

  Percentage of subjects choosing each lens for overall preference.

Before this study, 13 of the 40 participants (34%) had previously tried daily disposable lenses. In terms of overall preference, 6 of these subjects chose Proclear 1-Day, 3 no difference, and 4 Focus Dailies with AquaRelease. Five additional subjects reported no prior experience wearing contact lenses. Of these subjects, 2 chose Proclear 1-Day, 2 chose no difference, and 1 chose Focus Dailies with AquaRelease as their overall preference.

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

This study found that Proclear 1-Day was statistically significantly preferred to Focus Dailies with AquaRelease in overall preference and end-of-day comfort. Other aspects that were investigated, such as comfort upon insertion, folding, ease of insertion and removal, as well as tearing, were all found to be not statistically significant.

The Focus Dailies with AquaRelease lens was chosen by subjects as easier to insert and remove when compared with the Proclear 1-Day lens. Although this is an important factor, it seems to be more important to those who are experiencing contact lenses for the first time. Learning insertion and removal is an important part of wearing contacts and can be a large obstacle for first-time wearers. Therefore, this may be an important aspect for eye practitioners to think about when picking a lens for a first-time contact lens wearer. However, 25 of 40 had no preference on which lens was easier to insert, and 24 of 40 had no preference on which lens was easier to remove.

Daily disposable lenses should be considered a first option for new contact lens wearers. However, our study shows that not all daily disposable contact lenses perform equally well. As previously stated, the 4 Cs of daily disposable contact lenses include comfort, compliance, convenience, and cost.³

Comfort is the last C and one of the biggest reasons why people prefer to wear daily disposable contacts. Comfort is felt from the first moment the lens is inserted, which is not a common characteristic in other replacement schedules.³ Because the lenses do not need to be cleaned, there is no exposure to solution. Exposure to contact lens solution is believed to be an increasing reason for discomfort and misdiagnosis of keratoconjunctivitis sicca.¹³, ¹⁴ Daily disposables are worn for 1 day, giving less time for deposits to form and decrease comfort.¹⁵ Each morning a new, clean lens can be worn. This is an especially great option for any patient working in harsh environments.

End-of-day comfort is a concern for many contact lens wearers. Omafilcon A (Proclear 1-Day and Proclear Compatibles) has been found to have a consistent PLTF indicating superior wettability.⁶ This may explain why end-of-day comfort was found to significantly favor Proclear 1-Day lenses over Focus Dailies with AquaRelease.

Currently, CIBA Vision is introducing a new daily disposable also known as Dailies with AquaComfort Plus. This lens is the first to have triple-action moisture with 3 moisturizing agents working together to provide increased comfort. The first action is a lubricating agent to help provide comfort at the beginning of the day, the second is a wetting action to help provide comfort through the day, and third is a refreshing action that helps provide moisturizing agent with each blink to help increase end of the day comfort. Further studies comparing the new Dailies with AquaComfort Plus with the Proclear 1-Day lenses are warranted.

Since the completion of the study, many of the subjects who participated have chosen to be fitted into daily disposable contact lenses. When asked the reasons why, some of the subjects preferred the comfort of the daily disposables over their old contact lenses, some enjoyed the convenience of the daily disposables over their older contact lenses, and some subjects who had not been wearing correction realized that they could have better vision with a comfortable and convenient lens. It should be pointed out that optometry students could potentially identify lens brand by the shape of the blister pack. The investigators recognize this and felt that masking lenses was a better option than removing lenses from packaging and soaking in solution because of possible solution-related dryness.

The principal reason for conducting this study was an interest in the subjective differences between 2 daily disposable contact lenses. Although this study effectively investigated these differences, we could also have assessed the health of the eyes after wear of each of the contact lenses. In retrospect, subjects could have been questioned on the subjective differences between their previous contact lenses and the daily disposable contact lenses. These could be considerations for future studies investigating these lenses.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusion 

This independent study found that Proclear 1-Day was subjectively chosen as superior for end-of-the-day comfort (P = 0.0003) and overall preference (P = 0.0364) when compared with Focus Dailies with AquaRelease or no preference. A larger independent study would provide further insight into subjective preference of these 2 lenses. However, Focus Dailies with AquaRelease may need no further study because of CIBA Vision's newest Dailies with AquaComfort Plus introduction. One could argue that a cross-over design is preferable to a contralateral design in this type of study. The authors feel a contralateral design better addressed the questions we desired to answer. A cross-over design would have required each subject to remember what the previous lens felt like rather than providing a direct comparison. In addition, daily disposable lens comparisons need to be investigated in populations specifically suffering from ocular allergies or dry eye syndrome, as daily disposable lenses have been shown to be beneficial for both of these groups. The authors hope this information will give insight to eye care practitioners when deciding which daily disposable contact lens to fit on patients.

Back to Article Outline

Disclaimer 

The authors have no affiliation with any of the companies whose products were used or mentioned in this article. Funding for this project was obtained through the Northeastern State University Oklahoma College of Optometry fourth-year projects committee. Lenses and solution were donated by the NSUOCO contact lens clinic.

Back to Article Outline

Acknowledgments 

The authors thank Dr. Thomas Salmon, Dr. William Edmondson, Ms. Sandra Martin, Mr. Chuck Pack, Mr. Richard Hoenes, and Dr. Julia Sawyer for their assistance during our study.

Back to Article Outline

Appendix 1. 

Identification Number ___________

Daily Disposables Prestudy Questionnaire

YesNo

a.If so how often did you or do you replace the lenses?

a.Daily

b.Two weeks

c.Monthly

d.Three months

e.Yearly

f.Other: ________________________

b.Do you remember the brand you wore?

______________

YesNo

YesNo

a.If so do you remember why?

___________________________

YesNo

YesNo

Back to Article Outline

Appendix 2. 

Identification Number ___________

Daily Disposables Poststudy Questionnaire

ODOSNo Difference

ODOSNo Difference

ODOSNo Difference

ODOSNo Difference

YesNoNo Difference

a.If yes, about how many times:

OD __________OS ___________

YesNoNo Difference

a.If yes, about how many times:

OD __________OS ___________

YesNo

a.If yes, which eye had the problem(s)? What was the problem?

______________________________________

OD __________OS ___________

RightLeftNo Preference

Back to Article Outline

References 

1. Sankaridurg PR, Sweeney DF, Holden BA, et al. Comparison of adverse events with daily disposable hydrogels and spectacle wear. Am Acad Ophthalmol. 2003;110(12):2327-4
   • View In Article
2. Morgan PB, Woods CA, Jones D, et al. International contact lens prescribing in 2006. CL Spectrum. 2007;22(1):34–38
   • View In Article
3. Curtis W. Continuous wear or daily disposables: what's best for your patients?. CL Spectrum. 2002;17(8):8 (suppl)
   • View In Article
4. Solomon OD, Freeman MI, Boshnick EL, et al. A 3-year prospective study of the clinical performance of daily disposable contact lenses compared with frequent replacement and conventional daily disposable wear contact lenses. CLAO. 1996;22(4):250–257
   • View In Article
5. Nason R, Boshnick E, Cannon W, et al. Multisite comparison of contact lens modalities. Daily disposable wear vs. conventional daily wear in successful contact lens wearers. J Am Optom Assoc. 1994;65(11):774–780
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
6. Thai LC, Tomlinson A, Doane MG. Effect of contact lens materials on tear physiology. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81(3):194–204
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
7. Lemp MA, Caffery B, Lebow K, et al. Omafilcon A (Proclear) soft contact lenses in a dry eye population. CLAO J. 1999;25(1):40–47
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
8. Nick J, Winterton L, Lally J, et al. Lubricating lens focuses on patient comfort. CL Spectrum. 2006;21(1):40–41
   • View In Article
9. Hayes VY, Schnider CM, Veys J. An evaluation of 1-day disposable contact lens wear in a population of allergy sufferers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2003;26:85–93
   • View In Article
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (280 KB)
   • CrossRef
10. Alongi S, Rolando M, Macri A, et al. Bacterial load and protein deposits on 15-day versus 1-day disposable hydrophilic contact lenses. Cornea. 1998;16(3):274–276
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
11. Coopervision announces daily lens. Optometric Management. 2007;14:14
    • View In Article
12. Akerman DH, Dillehay S, Nylander SH, et al. Introducing Time-Release Comfort Focus® DAILIES® with AquaRelease(TM). Optometric Management. 2006;13;33-40
    • View In Article
13. Mai-Le K, Caroline P. The cost of lens care vs. daily disposable contact lenses. CL Spectrum. 2001;16(7):31, 40-1
    • View In Article
14. Carnt N, Jalbert I, Stretton S, et al. Solution toxicity in soft contact lens daily wear is associated with corneal inflammation. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84(4):309–315
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
15. Barr JA. Benefits of daily disposable contact lenses. CL Spectrum. 2003;18(4):36, 38-40
    • View In Article