Literature DB >> 12015406

A comparison of four methods of obtaining a negative impression of the foot.

Carrie Laughton1, Irene McClay Davis, Dorsey S Williams.   

Abstract

Four methods are currently available for taking a negative impression of the foot for the purpose of fabricating an orthotic device: nonweightbearing plaster casting, partial-weightbearing foam impressions, and partial-weightbearing and nonweightbearing laser scanning. This study compares the reliability and accuracy of these methods. Each impression method was performed three times on each foot of 15 subjects. Measures of rearfoot and forefoot width, forefoot-to-rearfoot relationship, and arch height were obtained from the negative impressions. Additionally, rearfoot and forefoot width and forefoot-to-rearfoot relationship were measured clinically for each subject. This study found that 1) foot measures are significantly influenced by the method used to obtain a negative foot impression; 2) the methods differ in reliability; and 3) plaster casting may be preferable to the other three methods when it is important to capture the forefoot-to-rearfoot relationship, as in fabricating a functional orthosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12015406     DOI: 10.7547/87507315-92-5-261

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Podiatr Med Assoc        ISSN: 1930-8264


  7 in total

1.  Reliability of capturing foot parameters using digital scanning and the neutral suspension casting technique.

Authors:  Matthew Carroll; Mary-Ellen Annabell; Keith Rome
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2011-03-04       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Foot Orthosis and Sensorized House Slipper by 3D Printing.

Authors:  Lorenzo Brognara; Massimiliano Fantini; Kavin Morellato; Gabriela Graziani; Nicola Baldini; Omar Cauli
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 3.748

3.  The use of 3D surface scanning for the measurement and assessment of the human foot.

Authors:  Scott Telfer; James Woodburn
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2010-09-05       Impact factor: 2.303

4.  Comparison of foot orthoses made by podiatrists, pedorthists and orthotists regarding plantar pressure reduction in The Netherlands.

Authors:  Nick A Guldemond; Pieter Leffers; Nicolaas C Schaper; Antal P Sanders; Fred H M Nieman; Geert H I M Walenkamp
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2005-12-20       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Measurements agreement between low-cost and high-level handheld 3D scanners to scan the knee for designing a 3D printed knee brace.

Authors:  Yoann Dessery; Jari Pallari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A protocol for a randomised controlled trial of prefabricated versus customised foot orthoses for people with rheumatoid arthritis: the FOCOS RA trial [Foot Orthoses - Customised v Off-the-Shelf in Rheumatoid Arthritis].

Authors:  Kellie S Gallagher; Jon Godwin; Gordon J Hendry; Martijn Steultjens; Jim Woodburn
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 7.  Comparison of 3D scanning versus traditional methods of capturing foot and ankle morphology for the fabrication of orthoses: a systematic review.

Authors:  Muhannad Farhan; Joyce Zhanzi Wang; Paula Bray; Joshua Burns; Tegan L Cheng
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 2.303

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.