Levels of contamination ranged from 0 to 6.4 Log CFU/storage case well, which varied significantly (p < 0.001) between different CL care solutions, and storage case contamination was not modulated by CL materials.
To test the hypothesis that various subjective ocular and task-related parameters associated with wearing a face mask would be better in neophyte contact lens (CL) wear compared to habitual spectacle (Sp) wear. Methods: Thirty participants were randomised to continue in Sp (n = 15) or wear somofilcon A daily disposable CL (n = 15) ('group'). A surgical face mask (Type II R) was worn for at least one hour per day on four or more days per week. After two weeks, participants completed the Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction Questionnaire (QIRC), a two-part face mask usability questionnaire and graded ocular-related symptoms using 0-100 visual analogue scales. Results: There was no difference between groups for overall QIRC score but some individual question scores reflected better quality of life in the CL: 'outdoor activities', 'keep fit' and 'able to do things' (all p < 0.05). Differences in favour of the CL were seen for the following in the face mask usability questionnaire: 'breathing', 'heat', 'comfort on ears', 'overall comfort', 'walking', 'driving', 'reading', 'computer use', 'exercising' and 'socialising' (all p < 0.05). Significant differences were also seen for the 0-100 VAS symptoms probing vision quality in favour of the CL: glare, distance and near vision, fogging, restricted field of view and peripheral blur. Conclusion: This work supports anecdotal reports that CL are a better vision correction option than Sp when used in conjunction with a face mask. Participants reported a range of benefits to the CL/face mask combination for vision-related symptoms, breathing and heat-related symptoms and a number of day-to-day activities including walking, driving and exercising. All of the benefits relating to the CL are likely to result in improved adherence to face mask use. Overall, the findings of this work suggest that where possible, CL should be the preferred vision correction option for people using face masks.
Aim: This study was conducted to compare and evaluate the effect of three abutment–implant connections on stress distribution around three different implants under similar material properties and loading condition using finite element analysis (FEA). Materials and Methods: Three different types of implant–abutment connections were selected. The features of these connections are Sample A: Tri-channel internal connection (Nobel Biocare); Sample B: Internal conical-hex Morse Taper (ADIN); and Sample C: Internal octa-Morse taper method (Osstem). The following softwares – ANSYS Version: 14.5 for FEA; Meshing software: Hypermesh 11; and CATIA: to produce computerized models of implants and for mandibular modeling were used. The implants were scanned with a high-quality scanner. All the above data were used to produce computerized models by CATIA software. Within the implant system, finite element method modeling was performed by implementing bonded conditions on the abutment–implant interfaces implementing four different load conditions. The computerized model was transferred to ANSYS software. A statistical analysis was done to compare the groups. Results: The samples were evaluated using three-dimensional FEA analysis. It was found that stress at 100 N, 100 N with 15° tilt, 300 N, and 300 N with 15° tilt was found to be highest in Sample A followed by Sample C and Sample B, and the difference was statistically insignificant. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, the tri-channel internal connection showed maximum stresses and least by the internal conical-hex Morse Taper and internal octa-morse taper connection.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.