Cargando…

Comparison of the Lubricity and Surface Roughness of 5 Cosmetic Contact Lenses

OBJECTIVES: Cosmetic contact lenses are increasingly popular because of their eye enhancing cosmetic benefits. The pigment particles used in these lenses can impact lens surface characteristics. This article examines the surface characteristics and the differences between the clear and the pigmented...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lau, Charis, Tosatti, Samuele, Mundorf, Michelle, Ebare, Kingsley, Osborn Lorenz, Kathrine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221400/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29570118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000482
_version_ 1783369016121753600
author Lau, Charis
Tosatti, Samuele
Mundorf, Michelle
Ebare, Kingsley
Osborn Lorenz, Kathrine
author_facet Lau, Charis
Tosatti, Samuele
Mundorf, Michelle
Ebare, Kingsley
Osborn Lorenz, Kathrine
author_sort Lau, Charis
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Cosmetic contact lenses are increasingly popular because of their eye enhancing cosmetic benefits. The pigment particles used in these lenses can impact lens surface characteristics. This article examines the surface characteristics and the differences between the clear and the pigmented regions among five limbal ring design lenses. METHODS: Scanning electron microscopy was used to determine the location and depth of the pigment particles from the lens surface. The coefficient of friction (CoF) was determined with a Basalt-MUST microtribometer at clear and pigmented regions on either the front or the back surface. Atomic force microscopy was used to determine the surface roughness of each lens in root-mean-square (RMS) units at clear and pigmented regions. A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used for the analysis of the CoF and RMS roughness to compare all lenses. RESULTS: Four lens types had pigments exposed on the surface and one lens type had pigment fully enclosed. The CoF difference between clear and pigmented regions were similar and not statistically significant (P=0.0124) for the lens type with pigments enclosed, whereas the CoF difference for the other four lens types showed statistically significant difference (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Of the lenses tested here, cosmetic contact lenses with pigments enclosed in the lens matrix provided a more consistent surface between clear and pigmented regions compared with lenses that had exposed pigments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6221400
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62214002018-11-21 Comparison of the Lubricity and Surface Roughness of 5 Cosmetic Contact Lenses Lau, Charis Tosatti, Samuele Mundorf, Michelle Ebare, Kingsley Osborn Lorenz, Kathrine Eye Contact Lens Article OBJECTIVES: Cosmetic contact lenses are increasingly popular because of their eye enhancing cosmetic benefits. The pigment particles used in these lenses can impact lens surface characteristics. This article examines the surface characteristics and the differences between the clear and the pigmented regions among five limbal ring design lenses. METHODS: Scanning electron microscopy was used to determine the location and depth of the pigment particles from the lens surface. The coefficient of friction (CoF) was determined with a Basalt-MUST microtribometer at clear and pigmented regions on either the front or the back surface. Atomic force microscopy was used to determine the surface roughness of each lens in root-mean-square (RMS) units at clear and pigmented regions. A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used for the analysis of the CoF and RMS roughness to compare all lenses. RESULTS: Four lens types had pigments exposed on the surface and one lens type had pigment fully enclosed. The CoF difference between clear and pigmented regions were similar and not statistically significant (P=0.0124) for the lens type with pigments enclosed, whereas the CoF difference for the other four lens types showed statistically significant difference (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Of the lenses tested here, cosmetic contact lenses with pigments enclosed in the lens matrix provided a more consistent surface between clear and pigmented regions compared with lenses that had exposed pigments. Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice 2018-11 2018-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6221400/ /pubmed/29570118 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000482 Text en Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the CLAO. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Article
Lau, Charis
Tosatti, Samuele
Mundorf, Michelle
Ebare, Kingsley
Osborn Lorenz, Kathrine
Comparison of the Lubricity and Surface Roughness of 5 Cosmetic Contact Lenses
title Comparison of the Lubricity and Surface Roughness of 5 Cosmetic Contact Lenses
title_full Comparison of the Lubricity and Surface Roughness of 5 Cosmetic Contact Lenses
title_fullStr Comparison of the Lubricity and Surface Roughness of 5 Cosmetic Contact Lenses
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Lubricity and Surface Roughness of 5 Cosmetic Contact Lenses
title_short Comparison of the Lubricity and Surface Roughness of 5 Cosmetic Contact Lenses
title_sort comparison of the lubricity and surface roughness of 5 cosmetic contact lenses
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221400/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29570118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000482
work_keys_str_mv AT laucharis comparisonofthelubricityandsurfaceroughnessof5cosmeticcontactlenses
AT tosattisamuele comparisonofthelubricityandsurfaceroughnessof5cosmeticcontactlenses
AT mundorfmichelle comparisonofthelubricityandsurfaceroughnessof5cosmeticcontactlenses
AT ebarekingsley comparisonofthelubricityandsurfaceroughnessof5cosmeticcontactlenses
AT osbornlorenzkathrine comparisonofthelubricityandsurfaceroughnessof5cosmeticcontactlenses