Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35744123›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Foot Orthosis and Sensorized House Slipper by 3D Printing.

Lorenzo Brognara, Massimiliano Fantini, Kavin Morellato, Gabriela Graziani, Nicola Baldini, Omar Cauli

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 3D Printing of Individual Running Insoles - A Case Study.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lorenzo BrognaraDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, 40123 Bologna, Italy.
Massimiliano FantiniRomagna Tech s.c.p.a., 47121 Forli, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3233-477X
Kavin MorellatoDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Via Terracini 28, 40131 Bologna, Italy.
Gabriela GrazianiLaboratory of Nanobiotechnology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2837-5977
Nicola BaldiniBiomedical Science and Technologies Lab, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136 Bologna, Italy.
Omar CauliNursing Department, University of Valencia, Avda Menendez Pelayo 19, 46010 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5669-4943
Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli · ITUniversity of Bologna · ITUniversitat de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn clinical practice, specific customization is needed to address foot pathology, which must be disease and patient-specific. To date, the traditional methods for manufacturing custom functional Foot Orthoses (FO) are based on plaster casting and manual manufacturing, hence orthotic therapy depends entirely on the skills and expertise of individual practitioners. This makes the procedures difficult to standardize and replicate, as well as expensive, time-consuming and material-wasting, as well as difficult to standardize and replicate. 3D printing offers new perspectives in the development of patient-specific orthoses, as it permits addressing all the limitations of currently available technologies, but has been so far scarcely explored for the podiatric field, so many aspects remain unmet, especially for what regards customization, which requires the definition of a protocol that entails all stages from patient scanning to manufacturing.

methodsA feasibility study was carried out involving interdisciplinary cooperation between industrial engineers and podiatrists. To that end: (i) For patient-specific data acquisition, 3D scanning of the foot is compared to traditional casting. (ii) a modelling GD workflow is first created to design a process permitting easy creations of customized shapes, enabling the end user (the podiatrist) to interactively customize the orthoses. Then, (iii) a comparison is made between different printing materials, in order to reproduce the same mechanical behavior shown by standard orthoses. To do this, the mechanical properties of standard materials (Polycarbonate sheets), cut and hand-shaped, are compared with four groups of 3D printed samples: poly(ethylene glycol) (PETG), poly(acrylonitrile-butadiene.styrene) (ABS), polycarbonate (PC) and poly(lactic acid) (PLA) obtained by Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF).

resultsDifferences found between the foot plaster model obtained with the plaster slipper cast in a neutral position and the model of the real foot obtained with 3D scanning in the same position can be ascribed to the non-stationarity of the patient during the acquisition process, and were limited by a locking system with which no substantial differences in the almost entire sole of the foot scan were observed.

conclusionsUsing the designed GD workflow, podiatrists with limited CAD skills can easily design and interactively customize foot orthoses to adapt them to the patients' clinical needs. 3D printing enables the complex shape of the orthoses to be reproduced easily and quickly. Compared to Polycarbonate sheets (gold standard), all the printed materials were less deformable and reached lower yield stress for comparable deformation. No modifications in any of the materials as a result of printing process were observed.

Indexed as

foot carefoot orthosisgaitmechanical propertiespolymers

Identifiers

PMID35744123
PMCPMC9231166
OpenAlexW4281639758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.