C L I N I C A L A N D E X P E R I M E N T A L

OPTOMETRY
RESEARCH PAPER

Optical quality comparison among different Boston contact lens materials

Clin Exp Optom 2016; 99: 39–46 DOI:10.1111/cxo.12323

Alberto Domínguez-Vicent MSc
Jose Juan Esteve-Taboada PhD
Teresa Ferrer-Blasco PhD
Santiago García-Lázaro PhD
Robert Montés-Micó PhD
Optometry Research Group (GIO), Department of
Optics, University of Valencia, Spain
E-mail: alberto.vicent@uv.es
Submitted: 11 August 2014
Revised: 15 April 2015
Accepted for publication: 19 April 2015
Background: The aim was to assess the optical quality of four Boston contact lens materials
with an optical device based on Schlieren interferometry.
Methods: The 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 sim-
ulation of the image provided by the lens were computed from the Zernike coefficients mea-
sured up to the fourth order.
Results: The root mean square error of higher-order aberrations varied significantly with ma-
terial 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 be-
ing (8.3 ± 0.2) × 10-2 μm. 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 Bos-
ton ES material exhibiting the best optical quality.
Conclusions: In terms of all metrics analysed, all Boston materials examined showed compa-
rable optical quality for a 3.0 mm aperture but the Boston ES material displayed the best opti-
cal quality for a 6.0 mm optical aperture.

Key words: Boston materials, Boston optical quality, contact lens aberrations, rigid contact lenses

In vivo measurements have demonstrated the
optical benefits of wearing rigid gas-perme-
able (RGP) contact lenses1–4 in comparison
to soft contact lenses and spectacles.2,4
Roberts and colleagues5 reported that soft
contact lenses induced a significant increase
in higher-order aberrations, when compared
with the naked eye and several studies have
reported that RGP contact lenses improve
the optical quality of the eye, especially those
dominated by corneal aberrations (for exam-
ple, keratoconus);1 however, several studies
have reported that the effect of RGP contact
lenses on the eye’s wavefront aberrations de-
pends upon the habitual ocular aberra-
tions.2,3,6 In this sense, if the habitual
aberrations of the eye were high, RGP contact
lens correction would reduce them, whereas
the opposite trend would be expected, if the
habitual aberrations were low.
Boston materials are used to manufacture
RGP contact lenses. The Boston EO and Bos-
ton ES materials are manufactured with a
fluoro silicone acrylate technology, combined
with the AERCOR chemical architecture.
This permits the maintenance and increase
of oxygen delivery while reducing silicone.7
Boston XO is a second generation fluoro sili-
cone acrylate, which offers superpermeability8
and is as dimensionally stable as gas perme-
able lenses of much lower Dk. The newest
Boston material, Boston XO2, provides excel-
lent oxygen permeability without compromis-
ing wettability, stability or comfort. Table 1
summarises the main physical properties of
these materials; however, it has not yet been
studied whether differences in the physical
characteristics, chemical structure and com-
position of these Boston RGP materials influ-
ence the optical quality of the lens.
The NIMO TR1405 (Lambda-X, Nivelles,
Belgium) is an optical device based on the
Schlieren interferometric principle,9 which
can be used to perform in vitro measurements
to obtain the refractive power and optical ab-
errations from spherical, toric and refractive
multifocal contact or intraocular lenses. This
device is more precise than any current
International Organization for Standardiza-
tion (ISO) method for the measurement of
monofocal contact lenses.10 The NIMO
TR1405 has been used to measure the distri-
bution of refractive power within the optical
zone of different soft contact lenses11 and to
assess the power profile of multifocal contact
lenses.12 No previous studies have used this
device to assess the optical quality of RGP
monofocal contact lenses.
The aim of this study was to assess the opti-
cal quality of four Boston contact lens mate-
rials with the NIMO TR1405 to determine
whether differences in physical properties,
polymer composition and chemical structure
affect optical quality in vitro.
METHOD
Contact lenses used
The contact lenses studied were RGP
monofocal BIAS-S (Conoptica, Barcelona,
Spain). Four lenses were included with the

© 2016 Optometry Australia Clinical and Experimental Optometry 99.1 January 2016
39
Optical quality among Boston materials Domínguez-Vicent, Esteve-Taboada, Ferrer-Blasco, García-Lázaro and Montés-Micó

coefficients (higher-order aberrations) and

BOSTON MATERIAL
the contact lens refractive power profile.
ES EO XO XO2 The measuring protocol was as follows.

Refractive index 1.443 1.429 1.415 1.424 1. The contact lens was removed from its blis-
Oxygen permeability (Dk) 18 58 100 141 ter and cleaned carefully with distilled water.
Oxygen transmissibility (Dk/t) 15 48 67 94 2. A small fan was used to remove all traces of
Silicone content 5-7 % 5-6 % 8-9 % 12-13 % distilled water without touching the lens.
o o o 3. The contact lens was transferred to the
Wetting angle 52 49 49 38o
NIMO’s dry cell cuvette with its back
Dynamic contact angle (advanced / receding) 52o / 50o 62o / 60o 59o / 58o 50o / 40o surface oriented downward (Figure 1).
This step was performed delicately using
Table 1. Material characteristics of each Boston material used in the study a pair of tweezers and special attention
was taken not to touch the optical zone
of the contact lens with the tweezers.
same optical design made from four different directions are used to characterize the con- 4. The contact lens was aligned with the
materials: Boston ES, Boston EO, Boston XO tact lens power within the optic zone.9–12 NIMO’s optical axis, and then one mea-
and Boston XO2 (Table 1). According to the With a single measurement, the NIMO is surement was taken.
data provided by the manufacturer, all lenses able to obtain the spherical and cylinder 5. Both the dry cell cuvette and the contact
had the same nominal characteristics: a back powers with their axes, Zernike lens were removed from the plate of the
vertex power of -3.00 D, a base curve of 7.90
mm, a total diameter of 9.60 mm and a nom-
inal centre thickness of 0.19 mm. The optical
quality of each material was assessed compar-
ing the optical outcomes of lenses fabricated
with the same design and nominal character-
istics. Only one lens made from each material
was examined to minimise the introduction
of possible bias due to the fabrication process
and this was not the purpose of the current
study. The fabrication process was assumed
to be within tolerance limits stipulated in
the ISO 18369-2:2006.13

Measurements
The NIMO TR1504 (Figure 1) uses a quan-
titative deflectometric technique and
combines the interferometric Schlieren
principle with a phase-shifting method9 to
measure the optical properties of contact
and intraocular lenses. A measuring light
with a maximum radiance peak of 546 nm
illuminates a liquid crystal display (LCD).
In addition, the image of the LCD, which
passes through the lens being measured,
is formed on a charged-coupled device
(CCD) camera, with a resolution of 1396
× 1040 pixels. The contact lens is placed
on the dry cuvette and the coupling lens-
cuvette is placed in the object plane of
the instrument (Figure 1). A sinusoidal pat-
tern is projected on the LCD, which is illu-
minated uniformly, when no lens is placed
in the object plane. Schlieren fringes are
projected on the CCD due to light devia-
tions or deflections once the lens is placed
in the object plane of the instrument. The
light beam deviation along both ‘x’ and ‘y’ Figure 1. Schematic layout of the NIMO TR1504

Clinical and Experimental Optometry 99.1 January 2016 © 2016 Optometry Australia
40
 Optical quality among Boston materials Domínguez-Vicent, Esteve-Taboada, Ferrer-Blasco, García-Lázaro and Montés-Micó

measurement, and the contact lens was
also removed from the dry cell cuvette.
6. The contact lens was placed again in the
dry cell cuvette and the coupling lens-
cuvette was replaced on NIMO’s mea-
suring plate.
7. Steps four, five and six were repeated 30
times to obtain a total of 30 measurements
for each lens material. Prior to each mea-
surement, the contact lens was realigned
with the NIMO’s optical axis. This proto-
col was completed twice, for 3.0 mm and
6.0 mm optical apertures.
The root mean square (RMS), modula-
tion transfer function (MTF), point spread
function (PSF), and Strehl ratio were com-
puted to assess the optical quality of each
lens material with a custom-made MATLAB
program (Mathworks, Natick, Massachu-
setts, USA). In addition, the convolution be-
tween an optotype eye chart and the point
spread function was also computed. The
average RMS value of each Zernike coeffi-
cient was also calculated for the 30 measure-
ments taken. In addition, the higher-order
root mean square error (HORMS) from
third to fourth order, which includes trefoil
(Z3-3; Z33), coma (Z3-1; Z31), tetrafoil (Z4-4;
Z44), secondary astigmatism (Z4-2; Z42) and
spherical (Z40) aberration, was also calcu-
lated. The MTFs were computed up to 60
cycles per degree and the retinal contrast
threshold values, which were measured at a
retinal illuminance of 500 td (troland),14
were also included in the modulation
transfer function curves. The intersection
between each Boston MTF and the retinal
curve gives information about the neural
cut-off frequency given by an eye wearing a
contact lens made of each material. The
point spread functions were presented using
a non-linear scale to enhance the side lobes
of the PSF functions. Finally, the Strehl ratio
was calculated in the frequency domain, as
the ratio between the area under the lens
MTF curve divided the area under the dif-
fraction-limited MTF curve.
Statistical analysis
All data were analysed using SPSS v.17.0
(IBM, New York, New York, USA). The
normality of the data was verified using
the Shapiro-Wilk test and the variance
equality with the Levene’s tests. A two-
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of four
(materials) times two (optical apertures)
factorial analysis was performed. The de-
pendent variables were the RMS of each
Zernike coefficient, the HORMS error
and the Strehl Ratio. The Holm-Sidak
multiple comparison test was performed
when the ANOVA revealed statistically sig-
nificant differences. Differences were con-
sidered statistically significant when the p
value was smaller than 0.01.
RESULTS
Table 2 shows the HORMS errors for all
Boston contact lens materials for the 3.0 mm
and 6.0 mm optical apertures. Similar
HORMS values among each Boston material
were obtained for the 3.0 mm optical aperture
with the standard deviation of each value
smaller than 2 × 10-3 μm. The multiple
comparison test revealed statistically sig-
nificant differences among all Boston ma-
terials (p < 0.01): Boston ES displayed the
smallest HORMS (1.46 ± 0.03) × 10-2 μm,
whereas, Boston EO displayed the largest
value (2.38 ± 0.06) × 10-2 μm. Table 2 also
includes the mean HORMS differences for
all between-material comparisons and their
significance levels. The greatest difference
was observed between the Boston EO and
Boston ES (0.92 × 10-2 μm, p < 0.01) and
the smallest difference was obtained
between Boston EO and Boston XO2 (0.16 ×
10-2 μm, p < 0.01).
Differences between Boston materials were
more apparent when the optical aperture was
set to 6.0 mm (Table 2). Statistically signifi-
cant differences (p < 0.01) were obtained
for all between-material comparisons. The
Boston ES displayed the smallest HORMS
value (10.14 ± 0.05) × 10-2 μm and the Boston
EO material displayed the largest value
(18.40 ± 0.10) × 10-2 μm. Table 2 also includes
the mean HORMS differences for all be-
tween-material comparisons and their signifi-
cance levels. The maximum difference was
obtained between the Boston EO and Boston
ES materials (8.26 × 10-2 μm, p < 0.01),
whereas, the minimum difference was ob-
tained between the Boston XO and Boston
XO2 (6.32 × 10-3 μm, p < 0.01).
Tables 3 and 4 show the RMS of each third-
and fourth-order Zernike coefficient for each
material over the 3.0 mm and 6.0 mm optical
apertures. When the aperture was set to 3.0
mm (Table 3), each Zernike coefficient term
was similar among all four materials, as the
mean difference for any given coefficient
was less than 0.003 μm, except for the spheri-
cal aberration term, where the mean differ-
ence was less than 0.03 μm. This table also
includes all between-materials comparisons
for each Zernike coefficient with statistically
significant differences (p < 0.01). In terms

Material 3.0 mm optical aperture 6.0 mm optical aperture

Mean ± SD Mean difference (significance) Mean ± SD Mean difference (significance)

-2 -2 -2
Boston EO (2.38 ± 0.06)·10 Boston EO-Boston ES: 0.92·10 (18.40 ± 0.10)·10 Boston EO-Boston ES: 8.26·10-2
-2 -2 -2
Boston ES (1.46 ± 0.03)·10 Boston EO-Boston XO: 0.56·10 (10.14 ± 0.05)·10 Boston EO-Boston XO: 5.47·10-2
Boston EO-Boston XO2: 0.16·10-2 Boston EO-Boston XO2: 6.11·10-2
-2 -2 -2
Boston XO (1.82 ± 0.04)·10 Boston ES-Boston XO: 0.36·10 (12.92 ± 0.08)·10 Boston ES-Boston XO: 2.79·10-2
-2
Boston ES-Boston XO2: 0.76·10 Boston ES-Boston XO2: 2.16·10-2
-2 -2 -2
Boston XO2 (2.22 ± 0.16)·10 Boston XO-Boston XO2: 0.40·10 (12.29 ± 0.07)·10 Boston XO-Boston XO2: 6.32·10-3

Table 2. Mean high-order root mean square value from third- and fourth-order for each Boston material at the 3.0 mm and 6.0 mm optical
apertures. The mean difference with its significance level was also included for all material pairs comparisons with statistical significant
differences. Significant differences were considered when p < 0.01. SD: Standard deviation. Both mean and mean differences were
expressed in μm.

© 2016 Optometry Australia Clinical and Experimental Optometry 99.1 January 2016
41
Optical quality among Boston materials Domínguez-Vicent, Esteve-Taboada, Ferrer-Blasco, García-Lázaro and Montés-Micó
Zernike coefficient Zernike value, μm (Mean ± SD)
Z (3 , -3) Boston EO: (3.00 ± 2.00)·10-4
-3
Boston ES: (1.08 ± 0.20)·10
-4
Boston XO: (5.06 ± 2.00)·10
Boston XO2: (7.70 ± 3.00)·10-4
-3
Z (3 , -1) Boston EO: (2.03 ± 1.60)·10
Boston ES: (2.70 ± 0.60)·10-3
Boston XO: (2.38 ± 1.20)·10-3
Boston XO2: (2.41 ± 0.80)·10-3
Z (3 , 1) Boston EO: (2.21 ± 1.50)·10-3
-4
Boston ES: (7.51 ± 7.00)·10
Boston XO: (1.31 ± 0.50)·10-3
-3
Boston XO2: (2.98 ± 0.80)·10
-4
Z (3 , 3) Boston EO: (2.55 ± 1.80)·10
-3
Boston ES: (1.07 ± 0.20)·10
Boston XO: (2.09 ± 1.03)·10-4
-3
Boston XO2: (1.16 ± 0.40)·10
Z (4 , -4) Boston EO: (6.85 ± 2.00)·10 -4
Boston ES: (3.71 ± 2.00)·10-4
-4
Boston XO: (4.79± 3.00)·10
-4
Boston XO2: (3.87 ± 2.00)·10
Z (4 , -2) Boston EO: (9.03 ± 2.15)·10-4
Boston ES: (1.18 ± 0.20)·10-3
-3
Boston XO: (1.59 ± 0.60)·10
-4
Boston XO2: (4.89 ± 1.60)·10
-2
Z (4 , 0) Boston EO: (2.36 ± 0.06)·10
Boston ES: (1.41 ± 0.02)·10 -2
-2
Boston XO: (1.79 ± 0.06)·10
Boston XO2: (2.18 ± 0.16)·10-2
-4
Z (4 , 2) Boston EO: (8.60 ± 3.0)·10
Boston ES: (1.80 ± 0.40)·10-3
-4
Boston XO: (4.17 ± 3.00)·10
-4
Boston XO2: (8.06 ± 3.00)·10
Z (4 , 4) Boston EO: (9.32 ± 7.00)·10-4
Boston ES: (7.95 ± 2.00)·10 -4
-4
Boston XO: (6.72 ± 4.00)·10
-4
Boston XO2: (2.47 ± 1.07)·10
Table 3. Mean and standard deviation (SD) of each Zernike coefficient term from third- to
fourth-order for all Boston materials at the 3.0 mm optical aperture. The third column
represents the mean difference and the level of significance for all between-material
comparisons with statistically significant differences, which were considered when p < 0.01.
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 99.1 January 2016
42
Mean difference (significant level)
Boston EO – Boston ES: -0.78·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO: -2.06·10-4
Boston EO – Boston XO2: 4.70·10-4
Boston ES – Boston XO: 0.58·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO2: -0.31·10-3
None
Boston EO – Boston ES: 1.46·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO: 0.90·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO2: -2.23·10-3
Boston XO – Boston XO2: -1.68·10-3
Boston EO – Boston ES: -0.81·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO2: -0.91·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO: 0.87·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO2: -0.09·10-3
Boston XO – Boston XO2: -0.95·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO2: 2.97·10-4
Boston ES – Boston XO2: -0.17·10-4
Boston XO – Boston XO2: 0.91·10-4
Boston EO – Boston ES: -0.28·10-4
Boston EO – Boston XO: -0.69·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO2: 4.14·10-4
Boston ES – Boston XO: -0.41·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO2: 0.69·10-3
Boston XO – Boston XO2: 1.10·10-3
Boston EO – Boston ES: 0.95·10-2
Boston EO – Boston XO: 0.57·10-2
Boston EO – Boston XO2: 0.17·10-2
Boston ES – Boston XO: -0.37·10-2
Boston ES – Boston XO2: -0.77·10-2
Boston XO – Boston XO2: -0.39·10-2
Boston EO – Boston ES: -0.94·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO: 4.43·10-4
Boston ES – Boston XO: 1.38·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO2: 0.99·10-3
Boston XO – Boston XO2: -3.89·10-4
Boston EO – Boston ES: 1.37·10-4
Boston EO – Boston XO: 2.60·10-4
Boston ES – Boston XO2: 5.49·10-4
of spherical aberration, all between-material
comparisons showed statistically significant
differences: the Boston EO material demon-
strated the largest spherical aberration value
(2.36 ± 0.06) × 10-2 μm, whereas the Boston
ES showed the smallest value (1.41 ± 0.02) ×
10-2 μm. No statistically significant differences
(p > 0.01) were obtained in terms of vertical
coma among all Boston materials. The
Boston EO showed the smallest value (2.0 ±
1.6) × 10-3 μm; the Boston ES material demon-
strated the highest coma value (2.70 ± 0.60) ×
10-3 μm. For horizontal coma, statistically
significant differences were obtained for all
between-material comparisons (p < 0.01),
except for the Boston EO – Boston XO2 and
BostonES–BostonXOcomparisons(p> 0.05).
On the other hand, when the optical aper-
ture was set to 6.0 mm (Table 4), the RMS er-
rors corresponding to vertical and horizontal
coma were smaller than 2.5 × 10-2 μm; how-
ever, the spherical aberration was larger than
0.1 μm and the other coefficients were smaller
than 0.003 μm. Table 4 also displays all
between-Boston material comparisons with
statistically significant differences for each
Zernike coefficient. The magnitude of spheri-
cal aberration varied significantly between all
Boston materials (p < 0.01): the Boston ES
displayed the smallest value (10.08 ± 0.03) ×
10-2 μm, whereas the Boston EO showed the
largest value (18.25 ± 0.05) × 10-2 μm. On the
other hand, vertical coma was statistically sig-
nificant for all between-material comparisons,
except for the Boston ES – Boston XO compar-
ison and comparable horizontal coma values
(p > 0.01) were obtained between Boston ES
– Boston XO2 and Boston EO – Boston XO.
Figures 2 and 3 show the MTFs for each
material at the 3.0 mm and 6.0 mm optical
apertures. Comparable curves were ob-
tained for the smallest optical aperture
(Figure 2), where the MTFs of all four Bos-
ton lens materials were close to the diffrac-
tion-limited curve. Additionally, the Boston
ES material provided the closest match to
the diffraction-limited MTF. For the 6.0
mm optical aperture (Figure 3), all curves
moved away from the diffraction-limited
MTF, with the MTF of Boston ES closest to
the diffraction-limited MTF. The cut-off
frequencies were similar among all Boston
materials for the smallest optical aperture,
being about 50 cycles per degree. For the
6.0 mm optical aperture, the Boston ES
material displayed the largest cut-off fre-
quency (about 40 cycles per degree) and
the Boston EO demonstrated the smallest
frequency (about 25 cycles per degree).
© 2016 Optometry Australia
 Optical quality among Boston materials Domínguez-Vicent, Esteve-Taboada, Ferrer-Blasco, García-Lázaro and Montés-Micó
Zernike coefficient Mean ± SD (μm)
Z (3 , -3) Boston EO: (3.68 ± 2.00)·10-4
-4
Boston ES: (3.49 ± 1.60)·10
-3
Boston XO: (1.96 ± 0.70)·10
Boston XO2: (2.43 ± 0.70)·10-3
-2
Z (3 , -1) Boston EO: (1.60 ± 0.20)·10
Boston ES: (9.00 ± 2.00)·10-3
-3
Boston XO: (9.26 ± 4.00)·10
-2
Boston XO2: (1.83 ± 0.20)·10
Z (3 , 1) Boston EO: (2.01 ± 1.08)·10-2
Boston ES: (7.85 ± 5.00)·10-3
Boston XO: (1.95 ± 0.70)·10-2
Boston XO2: (1.19 ± 0.30)·10-2
Z (3 , 3) Boston EO: (1.82 ± 1.60)·10-3
-4
Boston ES: (3.57 ± 1.50)·10
-3
Boston XO: (1.99 ± 0.70)·10
Boston XO2: (2.07 ± 0.80)·10 -3
-3
Z (4 , -4) Boston EO: (1.97 ± 0.50)·10
-3
Boston ES: (2.08 ± 0.30)·10
-4
Boston XO: (5.31 ± 1.50)·10
Boston XO2: (1.71 ± 0.20)·10-3
Z (4 , -2) Boston EO: (2.17 ± 0.80)·10-3
-3
Boston ES: (1.78 ± 0.40)·10
-3
Boston XO: (1.06 ± 0.70)·10
Boston XO2: (6.85 ± 3.00)·10-4
-2
Z (4 , 0) Boston EO: (18.25 ± 0.05)·10
Boston ES: (10.08 ± 0.03)·10 -2
-2
Boston XO: (12.71 ± 0.02)·10
Boston XO2: (12.09 ± 0.05)·10-2
-3
Z (4 , 2) Boston EO: (1.14 ± 0.62)·10
Boston ES: (1.48 ± 0.18)·10-3
-3
Boston XO: (2.25 ± 0.50)·10
Boston XO2: (7.81 ± 2.00)·10-4
Z (4 , 4) Boston EO: (1.89 ± 1.09)·10-3
-3
BostonES: (1.74 ± 0.40)·10
-3
Boston XO: (1.08 ± 0.30)·10
-4
Boston XO2: (3.67 ± 3.00)·10
Table 4. Mean and standard deviation (SD) of each Zernike coefficient term from third- to
fourth-order for all Boston materials at the 6.0 mm optical aperture. The third column
represents the mean difference and the level of significance for all between-material
comparisons with statistically significant differences, which were considered when p < 0.01.
© 2016 Optometry Australia
Mean difference (significant level)
Boston EO – Boston ES: 0.19·10-4
Boston EO – Boston XO: -1.59·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO2: -2.09·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO: -1.61·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO2: -2.09·10-3
Boston XO – Boston XO2: -0.47·10-3
Boston EO – Boston ES: 6.96·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO: 6.70·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO2: -0.24·10-2
Boston ES – Boston XO2: -9.32·10-3
Boston XO – Boston XO2: -9.07·10-3
None
Boston EO – Boston ES: 1.47·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO: -0.17·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO2: -0.24·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO: -1.63·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO2: -1.71·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO: 1.43·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO: 1.55·10-3
Boston XO – Boston XO2: -1.18·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO: 1.11·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO2: 1.49·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO: 0.72·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO2: 1.09·10-3
Boston EO – Boston ES: 8.17·10-2
Boston EO – Boston XO: 5.54·10-2
Boston EO – Boston XO2: 6.16·10-2
Boston ES – Boston XO: -2.63·10-2
Boston ES – Boston XO2: -2.01·10-2
Boston XO – Boston XO2: 0.63·10-2
Boston EO – Boston XO: -1.11·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO2: 0.36·10-3
-3
Boston ES – Boston XO: -0.77·10
Boston ES – Boston XO2: 0.70·10-3
Boston XO – Boston XO2: 1.47·10-3
Boston EO – Boston ES: 0.16·10-3
Boston EO – Boston XO2: 1.53·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO: 0.66·10-3
Boston ES – Boston XO2: 1.37·10-3
Similar Strehl ratio values were obtained
among Boston materials for the 3.0 mm op-
tical aperture; however, statistically signifi-
cant differences were obtained for all
between-materials comparisons (p < 0.01).
In general, the Strehl ratio values were
close to one at the smallest aperture: the
Boston ES lens demonstrated the largest
value (0.96), whereas the Boston EO showed
the smallest value (0.89). When the optical
aperture was set to 6.0 mm, the Strehl ratio
values also revealed statistically significant
differences for all between-material compar-
isons (p < 0.01): the Boston ES material
displayed the largest value (0.25) and Boston
EO the smallest value (0.19).
Figure 4 shows the point spread function
images of each Boston material for both opti-
cal apertures. Compact (that is, similar to a
single point source), with high peak intensity
PSFs were obtained for all Boston materials
for the 3.0 mm optical aperture. Generally
speaking, this metric was similar among all
Boston materials. Broader point spread func-
tions with lower peak intensity were obtained
when the optical aperture was set to 6.0 mm.
The Boston ES material displayed the most
compact PSF with the highest peak intensity,
while the Boston EO showed the broadest
PSF with the lowest peak intensity. The
Boston XO and XO2 materials displayed sim-
ilar point spread functions.
Finally, Figure 5 shows the convolution of
each PSF with an optotype chart. As ex-
pected, similar images were observed among
all Boston materials for the 3.0 mm optical ap-
erture. When the optical aperture was set to
6.0 mm, the Boston ES material displayed
the best optotype chart and the Boston EO
the worst. In addition, both Boston XO and
XO2 materials displayed similar images.
DISCUSSION
The Zernike coefficients (Table 3), HORMS
errors (Table 2) and Strehl ratios were small
in absolute value but varied significantly be-
tween all Boston materials for the 3.0 mm ap-
erture. Nevertheless, these differences were
not noticeable in the modulation transfer
functions (Figure 2), point spread functions
(Figure 4) or the simulations of the images
provided by the different materials (Figure 5).
These statistically significant differences were
most likely a result of the extremely low stan-
dard deviations obtained due to NIMO’s high
level of repeatability.10 Therefore, optical dif-
ferences among these materials are most
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 99.1 January 2016
43
Optical quality among Boston materials Domínguez-Vicent, Esteve-Taboada, Ferrer-Blasco, García-Lázaro and Montés-Micó

likely not clinically significant over a 3.0 mm

optical aperture.
For the 6.0 mm aperture, the Boston ES
displayed the best optical quality among the
other Boston materials in terms of Zernike
coefficients, HORMS errors and Strehl ratio
values. The simulated images in Figure 5
(bottom row) suggest that these differences
may be clinically significant. This figure also
highlights that differences between the Bos-
ton XO and XO2 materials are most likely
not clinically significant. Since all lenses ex-
amined had the same design and nominal pa-
rameters, any observed optical differences
between these lens materials might be related
to the polymer structure of each material;
however, small manufacturing differences
may account for some of the observed optical
quality differences between materials, as the
ISO 18369-2: 200613 allows a variance of 0.05
mm in the back optic zone radius. Finally, it
should be taken into consideration that these
results were obtained under in vitro condi-
tions and neither the optical quality of the
Figure 2. Modulation transfer function versus spatial frequency expressed in cycles per de- eye nor the performance of the lens on eye
gree for a 3.0 mm optical aperture for Boston EO, ES, XO and XO2 materials. The diffrac- were taken into account during computa-
tion-limited curve and retinal contrast threshold curve obtained by Sekiguchi, Williams and tions. For this reason, further in vivo studies
Brainward14 at a retinal illuminance of 500 td are included. should be aimed to assess whether these
observed optical differences are clinically
significant to RGP wearers.
Applegate and colleagues15 studied the
effect of the RMS wavefront error on the
visual performance using a Hartman-Shack
wavefront sensor. They reported the number
of letters lost as a function of the RMS of the
whole eye. According to their results, RMS
wavefront errors of 0.10 μm, 0.15 μm and
0.20 μm correspond to mean letter losses
of two, three and four letters, respectively.
Based on Applegate and colleagues’ results,
differences in visual function between
Boston materials would not be expected for
the 3.0 mm optical aperture as the differ-
ences in the RMS among all materials tested
were lower than 0.01 μm. In addition, differ-
ences in the wearer’s visual function might
not be expected due to the HORMS differ-
ence between the lens materials, which was
less than 0.10 μm, for the 6.0 mm aperture.
As was stated previously, a further in vivo
study is needed to assess whether subtle
optical differences between materials affect
the subject’s visual performance.
Spherical aberration was the predominant
higher-order aberration for both optical aper-
Figure 3. Modulation transfer function versus spatial frequency expressed in cycles per de- tures and was negative in sign for all materials
gree for a 6.0 mm optical aperture for Boston EO, ES, XO and XO2 materials. The diffrac- (Tables 3 and 4). As the spherical aberration
tion-limited curve and retinal contrast threshold curve obtained by Sekiguchi, Williams and of the whole eye is in most cases positive,16
Brainward14 at a retinal illuminance of 500 td are included. these particular lenses would minimise the

Clinical and Experimental Optometry 99.1 January 2016 © 2016 Optometry Australia
44
 Optical quality among Boston materials Domínguez-Vicent, Esteve-Taboada, Ferrer-Blasco, García-Lázaro and Montés-Micó

total spherical aberration of the combined

eye-contact lens system, as was reported by
Hong, Himebaugh and Thibos;4 however,
the spherical aberration of contact lenses in-
creases with increasing (absolute) contact lens
power.17
There are other technologies to measure
in vitro optical properties of RGP contact
lenses. Kollbaum and colleagues18 evaluated
the accuracy and repeatability of a commer-
cial Hartman–Shack aberrometer to measure
the aberrations of dry and wet contact lenses.
The accuracy of third-order aberrations was
verified by comparing the magnitude of in-
duced coma after decentring a lens with a
known amount of spherical aberration, while
the accuracy of fourth order was evaluated by
comparing the measured longitudinal spher-
ical aberration to that expected based on ray-
tracing through the lens design. This ap- Figure 4. Point spread functions computed from the wavefront aberrations for each
proach yielded accurate results with an error Boston contact lens material examined for both 3.0 mm and 6.0 mm optical apertures
lower than one per cent. The authors used
two different procedures to assess repeatabil-
ity. First, repeated measurements were taken
with the wet cell remaining in place, and sec-
ond, repeated measurements were taken af-
ter removing and reinserting the lens into
the wet cell. The variance using the first pro-
cedure was 3.9 × 10-7 μm2, when measuring
RGP contact lenses and 4.6 × 10-6 μm2 for
soft contact lenses. With the second proce-
dure, the variance was 2.9 × 10-6 μm2 for
RGP lenses and 2.0 × 10-5 μm2 for soft con-
tact lenses. Previous studies have assessed
the NIMO’s repeatability for the measure-
ment of monofocal contact lenses10 and the
power profiles of multifocal soft contact
lenses;19 however, no previous studies have
assessed the repeatability and accuracy of this
device for the measurement of Zernike coef-
ficient terms. Thus, further studies should as-
sess both repeatability and reproducibility of
the NIMO for measure aberrations of both
RGP and soft contact lenses.
In vitro measurements were conducted in Figure 5. Simulation of the images provided by the different lens materials for 3.0 mm and
this study; however, differences in on-eye 6.0 mm optical apertures
lens performance related to surface wettabil-
ity, oxygen permeability and the wearing
modality may impact on the quality of optical aperture; however, in vivo studies scholarship (Universidad de Valencia)
vision. Further studies should be aimed to are required to clarify these conclusions awarded to Alberto Domínguez Vicent.
assess whether differences among materials drawn from in vitro testing.
affect visual performance and to assess the REFERENCES
visual quality of these materials over time. 1. Dorronsoro C, Barbero S, Llorente L, Marcos M. On-
eye measurement of optical performance of rigid gas
In summary, it can be concluded that ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
permable contact lenses based on ocular and corneal
no visual differences might be expected This research was supported in part by the aberrometry. Optom Vis Sci 2003; 80: 115–125.
among Boston materials for a 3.0 mm ap- Starting Grant funded by the European Re- 2. Lu F, Mao X, Qu J, Xu D, He J. Monochromatic
erture due to similar results in the optical search Council (ERC-2012-StG-309416- wavefront aberrations in the human eye with contact
lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2003; 80: 135–141.
metrics assessed. Conversely, visual differ- SACCO) to Professor Robert Montés-Micó 3. Choi J, Wee WR, Lee JH, Kim MKK. Changes of oc-
ences might be expected at the 6.0 mm and by an ‘Atracció de talent’ research ular higher order aberration in on- and off-eye of

© 2016 Optometry Australia Clinical and Experimental Optometry 99.1 January 2016
45
Optical quality among Boston materials Domínguez-Vicent, Esteve-Taboada, Ferrer-Blasco, García-Lázaro and Montés-Micó
rigid gas permable contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2007;
84: 42–51.
4. Hong X, Himebaugh N, Thibos L. On-eye evalua-
tion of optical performance of rigid and soft
contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 872–880.
5. Roberts B, Athappilly G, Tinio B, Naikoo H, Asbell P.
Higher order aberrations induced by soft contact
lens in normal eyes with myopia. Eye Contact Lens
2006; 32: 138–142.
6. Shen J, Thibos L. Peripheral aberrations and image
quality for contact lens correction. Optom Vis Sci
2011; 88: 1196–1205.
7. Bennett E, Weissman B. Clinical Contact Lens Practice.
Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005.
8. Benjamin WJ. EOP and Dk/L: The quest for hyper
transmissibility. J Am Optom Assoc 1993; 64: 196–200.
9. Joannes L, Dubois F, Legros JC. Phase-shifting schlie-
ren: high-resolution quantitative Schlieren that uses
the phase-shifting technique principle. Appl Optics
2003; 42: 5046–5053.
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 99.1 January 2016
46
10. Joannes L, Hough T, Hutsebaut X, Dubois X, Ligot
R, Saoul B et al. The reproducibility of a new power
mapping instrument based on the phase shifting
Schlieren method for the measurement of spherical
and toric contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2010;
33: 3–8.
11. Belda-Salmerón L, Madrid-Costa D, Ferrer-Blasco T,
Garcia-Lazaro S, Montés-Micó R. In vitro power pro-
files of daily disposable contact lenses. Cont Lens
Anterior Eye 2013; 36: 247–252.
12. Montés-Micó R, Madrid-Costa D, Domínguez-Vicent
A, Belda-Salmerón L, Ferrer-Blasco T. In vitro power
profiles of multifocal simultaneous vision contact
lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2014; 37: 162–167.
13. ISO:18369-2. Contact lens. Part 2: Tolerances. Oph-
thalmic optics - contact lenses; 2006.
14. Sekiguchi N, Williams DR, Brainnard DH. Efficiency
in detection of isoluminant and isochromatic inter-
ference fringes. J Opt Soc Am A 1993; 10: 2118–2133.
15. Applegate RA, Ballentine C, Gross H, Sarver DJ,
Sarver CA. Visual acuity as a function of Zernike
mode and level of root mean square error. Optom
Vis Sci 2003; 80: 97–105.
16. Chakraborty R, Read SA, Collins MJ. Diurnal varia-
tions in ocular aberrations of human eyes. Curr Eye
Res 2014; 39: 271–281.
17. Dietze H, Cox M. On- and off-eye spherical aberration
of soft contact lenses and consequent changes of ef-
fective lens power. Optom Vis Sci 2003; 80: 126–134.
18. Kollbaum P, Jansen M, Thibos L, Bradley A. Valida-
tion of an off-eye contact lens Shack-Hartmann
wavefront aberrometer. Optom Vis Sci 2008; 85:
E817–E828.
19. Domínguez-Vicent A, Marín-Franch I, Esteve-
Taboada J, Madrid-Costa D, Montés-Micó R. Repeat-
ability of in vitro power profile measurements for
multifocal contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2015;
38: 168–172.
© 2016 Optometry Australia