Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:6846489rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0009836lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:6846489lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707455lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:6846489lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0005533lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:6846489lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0449851lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:6846489lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0443252lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:issue2lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:dateCreated1983-6-10lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:abstractTextTwo techniques for fitting long-term polymethyl methylcrylate (PMMA) lens wearers with a gas-permeable hard lens are compared. These are: complete cessation of all lens wear for the period necessary to achieve stability in the patient's refraction and corneal curvature, and immediate refitting with a Polycon lens. Eleven patients who had worn hard contact lenses for at least 3 years and had wearing times of at least 8 hr per day were refitted with each technique. Refitting with Polycon lenses slowed but did not otherwise inhibit the recuperative changes taking place in the cornea after PMMA lens removal; vision was better and more stable with this group.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:monthFeblld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:issn0093-7002lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:authorpubmed-author:TomlinsonAAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BennettE SESlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:volume60lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:pagination139-45lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:6846489-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:6846489-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:6846489-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:6846489-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:6846489-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:6846489-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:6846489-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:6846489-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:year1983lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:articleTitleA comparison of two techniques of refitting long-term polymethyl methacrylate contact lens wearers.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:6846489pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed