April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Dynamic Coefficient of Friction of Limbal Ring Contact Lenses
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Samuele Tosatti
    SuSoS AG, Dubendorf, Switzerland
  • Rudolf Aeschlimann
    SuSoS AG, Dubendorf, Switzerland
  • Kathrine E Lorenz
    J & J Vision Care Inc., Jacksonville, FL
  • Danielle Boree
    J & J Vision Care Inc., Jacksonville, FL
  • Joseph Kakkasseri
    J & J Vision Care Inc., Jacksonville, FL
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Samuele Tosatti, J & J Vision Care (F); Rudolf Aeschlimann, J & J Vision Care (F); Kathrine Lorenz, J & J Vision Care (E); Danielle Boree, J & J Vision Care (E); Joseph Kakkasseri, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc. (E)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 4653. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Samuele Tosatti, Rudolf Aeschlimann, Kathrine E Lorenz, Danielle Boree, Joseph Kakkasseri; Dynamic Coefficient of Friction of Limbal Ring Contact Lenses. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):4653.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: To evaluate the coefficient of friction (CoF) of limbal ring contact lenses in the central (optical zone) and peripheral (pigmented) areas of the lens.

Methods: Two limbal ring contact lens types [1-DAY ACUVUE® DEFINE® (AD) and Eye Coffret (EC)] were investigated in the center (C) and in the peripheral pigmented (PP) area of both front (FS) and back surface (BS) of the lens. CoF was measured with the lens in a tear-like fluid (TLF) using a Basalt MUST micro-tribometer and a mucin coated counter surface (Roba et al). To ensure consistent contact geometry, a tilted hemispherical sample support holder was used for the PP measurements. Statistical analysis comparing the PP and C portions of the lens on both the front and back surfaces was completed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures. 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference between areas type (PP-C) were constructed within each combination of lens brand and surface type. Similarly, 95% CIs for the difference between brands (EC-AD) were constructed within each combination of area and surface type. All intervals were adjusted for multiplicity using simulation methods.

Results: For EC, there was a statistically significant difference between the C and PP areas of the lens on both the front and back surface (FS CI=(-0.124, -0.016) p-value=0.015; BS CI=(0.419, 0.526) p-value<0.001). No statistical significant difference was found between the C and PP areas of AD and these areas were equivalent within a 0.06 CoF margin (FS CI (-0.058, 0.049) p-value=0.859; BS CI (-0.048, 0.052) p-value=0.922). AD was found to have a lower CoF than EC on both the FS and BS in both the C and PP areas (FS C CI=(0.079,0.205) p-value<0.001;PP CI=(0.014,0.139) p-value=0.015);(BS C CI=(0.062,0.187) p-value<0.001;PP CI=(0.535,0.665) p-value<0.001).

Conclusions: It is possible to measure dynamic CoF in different areas of limbal ring lenses. Depending on the lens type tested, differences in CoF may be seen between the C and PP regions. These differences may be attributed to the differences in surface roughness and the presence of pigments on the lens surface or enclosed within the lens matrix.

Keywords: 477 contact lens  

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.