Brought to you by the members of Maximizing Access & Quality Initiative
IUD Toolkit
Up-to-date evidence and best practices related to the Intrauterine Device


Different Types of IUDs
The major IUDs being manufactured today are made of plastic, and are either copper-containing or levonorgestrel-releasing. While some women in different parts of the world may still be using older inert devices (plastic only), the manufacturing of such devices is believed to have ceased. The most modern copper devices have the highest copper content (measured by square millimeters of copper surface and noted in the product’s name); these include the TCu-380A, the Multiload ML375, and Nova-T380. Each of these devices was preceded by products with less copper surface, some of which are still being manufactured today. This brief review will focus only on the major copper and levonorgestrel devices.
Today’s Copper IUDs
Today’s modern copper IUDs are highly effective (less than 1% failure rate in the first year of use). A recent comprehensive review on copper IUDs1 made the following observations, comparing the TCu380A to the ML375:
- the TCu380A has the lowest failure rates
- the ML375 may cause the fewest bleeding and pain problems after 2 years of use
- the ML375 had a higher expulsion rate after 4 years of use
- the ML375 insertion tube has a smaller diameter that may facilitate insertion in some women, though comparisons of insertion problems revealed no differences between devices
- no information on differences in ease of removal was provided
- the two IUDs require different loading and insertion techniques, but there is nothing to suggest that one is superior to the other
|
T Devices: TCu-380A |
![]() |
![]() |
Multiload Devices: MLCu-375 and MLCu-250 |
|
Nova-T Devices: Nova-T 380 and Nova-T 200 |
![]() |
Today’s Levonorgestrel Device
![]() |
LNG-20: (known as Mirena in the US) |
1 Kulier R, Helmerhorst FM, O'Brien P, Usher-Patel M, d'Arcangues C. Copper containing, framed intra-uterine devices for contraception. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3.




















