4.1 Article

Optical quality comparison among different Boston contact lens materials

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPTOMETRY
卷 99, 期 1, 页码 39-46

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12323

关键词

Boston materials; Boston optical quality; contact lens aberrations; rigid contact lenses

资金

  1. European Research Council [ERC-2012-StG-309416-SACCO]
  2. 'Atraccio de talent' research scholarship (Universidad de Valencia)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe aim was to assess the optical quality of four Boston contact lens materials with an optical device based on Schlieren interferometry. MethodsThe NIMO TR1504 (Lambda-X, Nivelles, Belgium) was used to measure higher-order aberrations and their corresponding root mean square values of four different rigid gas permeable contact lenses made from four different Boston materials: EO, ES, XO and XO2. For each lens, 30 measurements were performed with two optical apertures: 3.0 mm and 6.0 mm. The modulation transfer function, point spread function, Strehl ratio and a simulation of the image provided by the lens were computed from the Zernike coefficients measured up to the fourth order. ResultsThe root mean square error of higher-order aberrations varied significantly with material type for both optical apertures (p < 0.01). The largest difference was obtained between the Boston EO and the Boston ES materials (for a 6.0 mm aperture), the mean difference being (8.3 0.2) x 10(-2) mu m. The modulation transfer functions, point spread functions and Strehl ratio values were similar among all Boston materials at the smaller optical aperture; however, differences between each material were more apparent for the 6.0 mm aperture, with the Boston ES material exhibiting the best optical quality. ConclusionsIn terms of all metrics analysed, all Boston materials examined showed comparable optical quality for a 3.0 mm aperture but the Boston ES material displayed the best optical quality for a 6.0 mm optical aperture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据