Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the compositions of the ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) membrane of two different contraceptive vaginal rings could influence the surface roughness, which is associated with the possible accumulation of vaginal biomass on the rings during use. Methods: We measured and compared the surface roughness of unused vaginal rings, NuvaRing and Ornibel, using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and dedicated software that can convert SEM images into 3D models. Average roughness (Ra), average quadratic roughness (Rq) and mean height of the irregularities at 10 points (Rz) were calculated. Results: Different thicknesses of the EVA membranes between the two rings were noted. No significant differences were found between the two rings in the three evaluated values of surface roughness (NuvaRing vs Ornibel, respectively: Ra, 1.53 ± 0.14 vs 1.61 ± 0.14 µm, p = 0.141; Rq, 2.03 ± 0.25 vs 2.07 ± 0.16 µm, p = 0.688; Rz, 11.4 ± 3.1 vs 11.4 ± 2.4 µm, p = 0.987). Conclusion: The different composition of the vaginal rings’ EVA membrane is not associated with different surface roughness. Ornibel is equivalent to NuvaRing in terms of surface roughness, despite the different composition of the membrane polymers.

Surface roughness of different contraceptive vaginal rings: evaluation by scanning electron microscope (SEM) / Grandi, G.; Timo, A.; Sammarini, M.; Del Savio, M. C.; Facchinetti, F.. - In: THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CONTRACEPTION AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE. - ISSN 1362-5187. - 25:1(2020), pp. 60-64. [10.1080/13625187.2019.1709964]

Surface roughness of different contraceptive vaginal rings: evaluation by scanning electron microscope (SEM)

Grandi G.;Timo A.;Del Savio M. C.;Facchinetti F.
2020

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the compositions of the ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) membrane of two different contraceptive vaginal rings could influence the surface roughness, which is associated with the possible accumulation of vaginal biomass on the rings during use. Methods: We measured and compared the surface roughness of unused vaginal rings, NuvaRing and Ornibel, using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and dedicated software that can convert SEM images into 3D models. Average roughness (Ra), average quadratic roughness (Rq) and mean height of the irregularities at 10 points (Rz) were calculated. Results: Different thicknesses of the EVA membranes between the two rings were noted. No significant differences were found between the two rings in the three evaluated values of surface roughness (NuvaRing vs Ornibel, respectively: Ra, 1.53 ± 0.14 vs 1.61 ± 0.14 µm, p = 0.141; Rq, 2.03 ± 0.25 vs 2.07 ± 0.16 µm, p = 0.688; Rz, 11.4 ± 3.1 vs 11.4 ± 2.4 µm, p = 0.987). Conclusion: The different composition of the vaginal rings’ EVA membrane is not associated with different surface roughness. Ornibel is equivalent to NuvaRing in terms of surface roughness, despite the different composition of the membrane polymers.
2020
10-gen-2020
25
1
60
64
Surface roughness of different contraceptive vaginal rings: evaluation by scanning electron microscope (SEM) / Grandi, G.; Timo, A.; Sammarini, M.; Del Savio, M. C.; Facchinetti, F.. - In: THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CONTRACEPTION AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE. - ISSN 1362-5187. - 25:1(2020), pp. 60-64. [10.1080/13625187.2019.1709964]
Grandi, G.; Timo, A.; Sammarini, M.; Del Savio, M. C.; Facchinetti, F.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1201422
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact