I would always try to dispense at least a poly lens unless a pt really insists not to. So my question is since it is already 100% uv proof then what is the big deal to upgrade to Crizal sapphire with uv? What are the advantages?
I would always try to dispense at least a poly lens unless a pt really insists not to. So my question is since it is already 100% uv proof then what is the big deal to upgrade to Crizal sapphire with uv? What are the advantages?
$$$$
The benefits have been discussed here previously. But because almost everyone (not all of us) on these boards are utterly anti-Essilor at all costs, much of the information was buried under mountains of bashing.Your local Crizal rep would be a good place to start for information. There are benefits to the patient of course, and it sounds like of those dispensers who already dispense Crizal lenses, the cost to the patient is going to remain the same or very close to.
Best! And welcome to OB.
It's basically just a re-branding of the product. Has same hydrophobic/oleophobic properties as it did with crizal 'scotchguard', only they aren't calling it 'scotchguard' anymore.
Patient, ".. Doctor says I have a subscription for stigmata.. Can you fill that?"
Me, "..Um.. "
Except that's not really accurate at all is it. It is a different product. Talk to your rep to get details.Originally Posted by vcom
Holy crap, again? Make with the reading people.
I'm trying to be open-minded about Essilor's claim that reflected UV off the inside of the lens is 1)not filtered by poly and 2)their A/R is the only solution to the problem. Thoughts?
Serious question...if the UV is absorbed/diffused by the front of the lens, why is it NOT absorbed/diffused by the back ? Btw the Sapphire is bluer and is even more free of reflections than regular Crizal.
...and why isn't Crizal EZ offered with the UV option?
Reflected light from the backside doesn't pass through the material of the lens, therefore the UV-absorbing qualities of the poly don't factor in to reflected UV.
I like Sapphire a lot. I love the residual blue, and I like that it's even more clear than Avance. The only AR I like as much is PureCoat.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Been trying to educate myself on whether UV coatings filter or absorb-thoughts?
Can anyone elaborate why this happens ? As in WHY doesn't the UV get asorbed/diffused by the backside ?
I'm trying to get my head around that too-thanks for asking the question mdeimer!
Because that's the way reflection works. For the UV filtering/absorbing (same thing, by the way) properties of the lens material to work, the light has to go through the material for it to filter out. Light that reflects off the surface of a lens is not passing through it, therefore the filtering cannot happen.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Thanks Andrew! Do you have a UV meter and does it read any differently with Crizal UV on the lens?
Actually makes sense. Too bad someone had to spell it out for me. I guess I shouldn't ask silly questions in between edging lenses and dispensing glasses.
if this is such an eye health hazard, why is it only being addressed now?
I could be wrong but think of it the same way a mirror can bounce a laser back to another point. The "reflection" of a lens not treated with AR returns a partial amount of the uv back to the cornea. The UV source (sunlight) has to be coming from the side or behind.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly right and it's a total genius move. One of those "why didn't anyone think of this before" kind of things.
...and why aren't standard UV coatings addressing the "problem"?
the way our essilor rep described it to us is instead of wearing SPF 10, you're wearing SPF 25? haha. i use that to describe it to patients and they seem to get the benefits of it.
As far as i understand it, it still has all of the benefits of the SGP, but they didnt want to pay for using the scotchguard logo so now its UV and it does give more protection because it provides protection from front and back side reflection. i could just be drinking the kool aid, but i love my saphire coating. i see a million times better out of it than even avance. but that could be my one funky high astig eye talking :)
"what i need is a strong drink and a peer group." ... Douglas Adams - Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy
so the "UV 400" coating my lab offers doesn't block UV from the back of the lens?
i would ask, but from what i understand the avance and saphire UV are the only ones who do? could be totally incorrect though, but thats kind of what theyre basing the entire marketing join the essilor club thing on :) our rep says theyre the only ones who offer that now.
"what i need is a strong drink and a peer group." ... Douglas Adams - Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy
has anyone put the Crizal UV in a UV meter to see if it really blocks UV?
Why is UV such a big dea? Every other living thing seeks a place in the sun and does just fine without IV coating, and people did too until it was invented (and marketed). It seems to me that we evolved with the sun, and we are built to be the better for sun exposure, including the eyeball. Suncreen has already been exposed as a massive scam. Maybe UV coating will be next.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks