Alveolar bone loss one year following ovariectomy in sheep.

There is little information concerning the incidence of alveolar bone loss in estrogen-deficient women. Ovariectomized sheep are valid models for study of the effects of estrogen deficiency on bone metabolism. The objective of this study was to compare alveolar bone loss in control (C) and ovariectomized sheep (OVX) at 3 and 12 months following surgery. OVX animals had decreased serum levels of 17-beta-estradiol and increased serum levels of osteocalcin, IL-6, and urinary levels of deoxypyridinoline which, taken together, suggest development of osteoporosis. The mean probing depths and percentage of sites with pocket depths 4 to 6 mm and > 6 mm were significantly greater in OVX than C at each time period and in OVX were significantly greater at 12 months that at 3 months. Gingival tissue interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels (but not the number of IL-6(+) cells) were elevated adjacent to deep periodontal pockets; however, there was no significant elevation of levels of the proinflammatory cytokines IL-1 beta and IL-8 within gingiva. Taken together, the data suggest a systemic contribution for progression of periodontal disease associated with estrogen deficiency. This may involve upregulation of systemic IL-6 synthesis and transfer to gingiva in serum, resulting in enhanced IL-6 accumulation within the gingival tissues or reduced bone density allowing for a greater amount of alveolar bone loss.

Clinical and overnight corneal swell comparison of the 1-Day Acuvue lens versus the Medalist, Surevue, Biomedics, and Acuvue lenses.

PURPOSE: We characterized the clinical performance of the 1-Day Acuvue contact lens by direct comparison with four frequently prescribed daily wear lenses. METHODS: Forty-eight patients participated in four prospective, randomized masked clinical trials using the 1-Day Acuvue in one eye and the Medalist, Surevue, Acuvue (regular), and Biomedics 55 lenses in the other eye. Each trial lasted 2 weeks. Thirteen symptom variables and overall lens preference were evaluated using a patient preference questionnaire and a symptom-ranking questionnaire. Overnight corneal swell studies were also performed. RESULTS: In the non-allergic (58.4%) subgroup, the overall lens preference variable revealed a significant preference for the Medalist (P = .004), Surevue (P < .001), and Biomedics 55 (P < .001) lenses. In contrast, in the allergic (41.6%) subgroup, the overall lens preferences for the Medalist, Surevue, and Biomedics 55 lenses were completely absent. Multivariate regression analysis in the non-allergic subgroup revealed that lens comfort (.58, P < .001), lens handling upon insertion (.41, P < .001), and quality of vision (.35, P < .001) were significant variables contributing to patient responses regarding overall lens preference. However, in the allergic subgroup, only the lens comfort (.92, P < .001) variable is significant and appears to dominate the decision making. The overnight corneal swell evaluation revealed no significant differences between the 1-Day Acuvue and the Medalist lens. Patients wearing regular Acuvue had significantly less corneal swelling upon awakening (P = .005) and at 60 minutes after awakening (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: The Medalist, Surevue, and Biomedics 55 lenses outperformed the 1-Day Acuvue lens in the non-allergic subgroup. In the allergic subgroup, there was no statistically significant difference between the 1-Day Acuvue lens and all other lenses tested.

Clinical performance of the Optima toric contact lens versus the CSI toric contact lens.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical performance of the Optima soft toric contact lens versus the CSI soft toric contact lens. METHODS: Twenty-one patients (five affected by allergies) were followed at 2-week intervals for 4 months in a prospective, randomized, double-masked study comparing the Optima soft toric contact lens to the CSI soft toric contact lens. RESULTS: The patients preference evaluation revealed a statistically significant preference for the CIS toric lens in 14 of 16 variables including overall lens preference (P = 0.0001). The two remaining variables, lens awareness (P = 0.07) and foreign body sensation (P = 0.06), showed a trend toward a preference for the CSI toric lens. The less sensitive symptom ranking questionnaire revealed a significance for, or a trend toward, a significant difference in three of 10 variables, all in favor of the CSI toric lens. The mean degrees of axis rotation were 3.5* for the CSI lens and 7.6* for the Optima lens (P = 0.0001). Factor analysis identified a clustering of variables around specific ranked factors. Factors related to 1) allergy status (.93); 2) visual function (.87); 3) ocular surface (.82); and 4) refractive characteristics (.71) were most significant in determining the overall clinical performance of these toric lenses. Allergic patients significantly preferred the CSI toric lens for 15 of 16 variables, whereas non-allergic patients preferred the CSI lens for seven of 16 variables. CONCLUSIONS: The patient preference, symptom ranking, and axis rotation analysis of this study revealed a superior performance by the CSI toric contact lens when compared to the Optima toric contact lens. Allergic patients revealed an even stronger and statistically significant preference for the CSI lens when compared to non-allergic patients.