The Impact of Cosmetics on the Physical Dimension and Optical Performance of Contemporary Silicone Hydrogel Contact...

Contact lens wearers may inadvertently expose their lenses during the lens insertion and removal process or while wearing their lenses to cosmetic products being used. This study investigated the impact of various cosmetics on the physical dimension and optical properties of three recently marketed monthly replacement silicone hydrogel contact lenses.

In this in vitro study, three monthly replacement silicone hydrogel lens types including senofilcon C (ACUVUE VITA, Johnson & Johnson), samfilcon A (Bausch+Lomb ULTRA, Bausch+Lomb), and lotrafilcon B+EOBO (polyoxyethylene-polyoxybutylene) (AIR OPTIX plus HydraGlyde, ALCON), were individually coated with cosmetic products followed by a 1-hr soak in phosphate-buffered saline. Cosmetic products included; three hand creams (HC1: Glysomed; HC2: Vaseline Healthy Hand & Nail Conditioning; and HC3: Intense Relieve), three make-up removers (MR1: Lid-Care Towelettes; MR2: Gentle waterproof eye and Lip Makeup Remover; and MR3: Oil-Free Makeup Remover), and three mascaras (MA1: Great Lash-waterproof; MA2a: Wonder'Lash-waterproof, and MA3: Voluminous Original). The contact lens dimensions were determined for diameter, sagittal depth, and base curve, using the Chiltern (Optimec Limited), whereas lens power and optical quality were assessed using the Contest Plus II (Rotlex). Six replicates for each lens/cosmetic combination were used. The impact of cosmetics was tested between lenses and compared with uncoated control lenses.

For lens diameter, makeup removers (MR2 & MR3) demonstrated the largest impact, with an increase of up to 0.26 mm (MR2) and 0.35 mm (MR3) for senofilcon C and samfilcon A, respectively (P<0.01 compared to baseline), whereas lotrafilcon B+EOBO showed a decrease of 0.01 mm (P<0.01 between lens types). For sagittal depth, mascara MA1 demonstrated the greatest impact, followed by makeup removers MR2 & MR3. All lenses showed increases in sagittal depth after MA1 exposure (0.16±0.06 mm in lotrafilcon B+EOBO, 0.24±0.22, and 0.26±0.09 mm in samfilcon A and senofilcon C, respectively; P<0.01 for all lenses compared with baseline). For base curve, the makeup removers (MR2 & MR3) caused increases for both senofilcon C (up to 0.36 mm) and samfilcon A (up to 0.35 mm), but lotrafilcon B+EOBO was unaffected. Lens power changes were generally minor (<0.25 D). However, senofilcon C showed a significant change of -1.18±0.65 D (more minus) after MA1 exposure (P<0.001). Image quality was most affected by mascaras, although given that all lens types were adversely affected to similar degrees, none of the lenses performed better or worse after mascara application (P>0.05). The parameters of the different lens types were not significantly affected by the hand creams.

Makeup removers and mascaras changed the lens parameters to varying degrees, which may affect the fit and overall performance of the lens, whereas no such effect was noted with hand creams. Lotrafilcon B+EOBO was typically less affected compared with senofilcon C or samfilcon A.