Lens epithelial cell reaction after implantation of different intraocular lens materials

Biocompatibility of hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intraocular lenses in eyes with uveitis having cataract surgery: Long-term follow-up

“…[29][30][31] Earlier studies 10,29,32-34 found that hydrophilic acrylic is more susceptible to LEC ongrowth. However, Tognetto et al 31 found that different hydrophilic materials cause specific LEC reactions; therefore, it would not be sufficient to describe the biomaterial of an IOL as hydrophilic when referring to its biocompatibility. Indeed, in an earlier study, 30 we found that LEC outgrowth in eyes with a modern hydrophilic IOL was lower than in eyes with an older hydrophilic IOL.…”

Anterior and posterior capsular opacification with the Tecnis ZCB00 and AcrySof SA60AT IOLs: a randomised intraindividual comparison

“…It should be considered that the Acrysof SA60AT is a biconvex IOL with haptic angulation of 0°, whereas the Tecnis ZCB00 is a biconvex IOL with aspheric anterior surface and haptic offset for three points of fixation. Tognetto et al 34 concluded that anterior capsule opacification was an index of IOL biocompatibility. They also suggested that the natural location of LECs precludes the possibility of the IOL design to influence the anterior capsule behaviour.…”

Visual performance and biocompatibility of 2 multifocal diffractive IOLs

“…However, the lower incidence of capsule fibrosis of the ReSTOR IOLs compared with the Tecnis IOLs confirms the better biocompatibility of the AcrySof material than the silicone material, as demonstrated in several studies. [27][28][29] In conclusion, the ReSTOR IOL and the Tecnis IOL provided a satisfactory full range of vision, with less dependence on spectacles and with fewer induced spherical aberrations. We found better biocompatibility of the ReSTOR IOL than the Tecnis IOL, particularly in capsule behavior.…”