Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 22;2020:6134627. doi: 10.1155/2020/6134627

Table 2.

Atomic force microscopic evaluation for root mean square roughness (Rrms) and average roughness (Ra) of the brown cosmetic contact lens at each area.

Samples Position R rms (nm) (mean ± SD) P valuea for Rrms R a (nm) (mean ± SD) P valuea for Ra

CCL-A (1) Central clear zone 3.57 ± 1.15 Clear: front 2.72 ± 0.82 Clear: front
0.0015 0.0014
(2) Front surface 26.19 ± 4.97 Front: back 21.03 ± 3.90 Front: back
0.0017 0.0014
(3) Back surface 3.75 ± 1.42 Back: clear 2.67 ± 1.02 Back: clear
0.8702 0.9564

CCL-B (1) Central clear zone 7.40 ± 0.22 Clear: front 5.40 ± 0.41 Clear: front
0.0002 0.0002
(2) Front surface 49.98 ± 5.64 Front: back 39.35 ± 4.52 Front: back
0.0004 0.0003
(3) Back surface 9.86 ± 2.66 Back: clear 7.05 ± 1.45 Back: clear
0.1860 0.1308

CCL-C (1) Central clear zone 5.12 ± 0.42 Clear: front 3.72 ± 0.54 Clear: front
0.0001 0.0001
(2) Front surface 43.17 ± 4.64 Front: back 33.44 ± 3.31 Front: back
0.0002 0.0001
(3) Back surface 8.34 ± 0.23 Back: clear 6.46 ± 0.19 Back: clear
0.0003 0.0012

R rms: root mean square roughness; Ra: average roughness; SD: standard deviation. aComparison of lens surface roughness between different sides using the unpaired t-test. At the colored parts, all lenses with the surface pigment had significant difference of roughness between the front and back surfaces (P < 0.050 indicates statistical significance).