3.9 Article

Deposit buildup on prosthetic eye material (in vitro) and its effect on surface wettability

期刊

CLINICAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 313-319

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S40680

关键词

protein deposits; surface polish; PMMA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this in-vitro study was to investigate the effect of different polishing standards on prosthetic eye material (poly(methyl methacrylate) [PMMA]) on surface wettability and the rate of protein and lipid buildup. Methods: Sample disks (12 mm diameter x 1 mm thickness) of PMMA were polished to three different standards of surface finish: low, normal, and optical quality contact lens standard. The sample disks were incubated in a protein-rich artificial tear solution (ATS) for the following periods of time: 1 second, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 4 hours, 24 hours, and 14 days. Surface wettability was measured with a goniometer before and after protein deposits were removed. One-way analysis of variance and paired-samples t-test were used for the statistical analysis. Results: Between 13.64 and 62.88 mu g of protein adhered to the sample disks immediately upon immersion in ATS. Sample disks with the highest polish attracted less protein deposits. The sample disks polished to optical quality contact lens standard were more wettable than those less highly polished, and wettability significantly decreased following removal of protein deposits. The addition of lipids to protein-only ATS made no difference to the amount of protein deposited on the sample disks for any of the standards of surface polish tested. Conclusion: The findings are consistent with the results of the in-vivo investigation reported previously by the authors. Our view that the minimum standard of polish for prosthetic eyes should be optical quality contact lens standard and that deposits on PMMA prosthetic eyes improve the lubricating properties of the socket fluids has been reinforced by the results of this study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据