Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
OptiFree Pure Moist is suitable for individuals who want a solution that is convenient and requires only 5 minutes of soaking time. It is important to choose the solution that best suits your specific needs and lens type. Lens Compatibility Of Both Solutions Both solutions have their unique features, and it is important to choose the one that suits your specific needs and lens type. Compositions Of Both Solutions Because Clear Care’s Cleaning & Disinfecting Solution is hydrogen peroxide-based, it may be a suitable choice for those who find multipurpose solutions irritating. The solution is also preservative-free, to further cut down on irritation. On the other hand, OptiFree Pure Moist uses a multi-action disinfectant system to effectively remove bacteria and other harmful particles from the lens. The solution requires only 5 minutes of soaking time, making it a convenient option for individuals who are short on time.
FILL: Fill the lens case with AOSEPT PLUS ® with HydraGylde ® to the indicator line. Place the lens holder in the case, and twist to close securely. Based on % of respondents who agree/strongly agree to “When I use this solution, I can comfortably wear my lenses all day long” (n=up to 10,610). Benzalkonium chloride (BAK): Works to kill a wide spectrum of bacteria and fungi, and can be used in lower concentrations combined with EDTA The method of disinfection is another important difference between OptiFree Replenish and OptiFree Pure Moist. OptiFree Replenish uses hydrogen peroxide as the disinfecting agent. This product comes with a case that converts the hydrogen peroxide into saline within a few hours. People should avoid getting hydrogen peroxide in or near the eye, as this can result in stinging, burning, irritation, eye pain, or injury.Lally J et al. A new lens care solution provides moisture and comfort with today’s CL’s. Optician 4/01/2011;241(62960): 42-46. Stuermer EK et al. Comparing Two Polymeric Biguanides: Chemical Distinction, Antiseptic Efficacy and Cytotoxicity of Polyaminopropyl biguanide and Polyhexamethylene biguanide. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2016;65(8):867-876.
On the other hand, OptiFree Pure Moist is a disinfecting solution that is designed specifically to provide all-day comfort by moisturizing the lens. Unlike OptiFree Replenish, OptiFree Pure Moist only contains a moisturizing ingredient, HydraGlyde moisture matrix, making it ideal for individuals with dry eyes. The solution uses a multi-action disinfectant system, which is effective in removing bacteria and other harmful particles from the lens. Chlorhexidine-Bactericidal: When bound with EDTA, it has increased efficacy for gas permeable lenses, but is not as effective against fungi/yeast Opti-Free's trademark TearGlyde reconditioning system creates a layer of moisture by working in harmony with your tears. This gentle layer also prevents unwanted formations such as protein or lipid deposits. In fact, this solution will keep your eyes feeling so fresh and healthy you'll barely notice the lenses at all. This makes it perfectly suitable for people with dry and sensitive eyes.
Recommended For
In conclusion, the method of disinfection is an important factor to consider when choosing between OptiFree Replenish and OptiFree Pure Moist. OptiFree Replenish is ideal for individuals who want a solution that provides effective disinfection and are willing to wait 6 hours for the soaking time. It is important to choose the solution that best suits your specific needs and lens type. Disinfection Methods Of Both Solutions The composition of OptiFree Replenish and OptiFree Pure Moist is one of the key differences between the two solutions. OptiFree Replenish is a multipurpose disinfecting solution that not only cleans but also replenishes the lens with moisture-rich ingredients. Rosenthal RA et al. Broad spectrum antimicrobial activity of a new multi-purpose disinfecting solution. CLAO 2000;26(3):120-26. Finnegan S, Percival SL. EDTA: An Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Agent for Use in Wound Care. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2015;4(7):415-421. doi:10.1089/wound.2014.0577
Great Deal 
New Comment