ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2024
Comparison of accuracy and speed between plaster casting, high-cost and low-cost 3D scanners to capture foot, ankle and lower leg morphology of children requiring ankle-foot orthoses.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Direct 3D Scans and Plaster Casts in Digital Ankle-Foot Orthosis Workflows.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Does Scanner Choice Matter for the Design of Foot Orthosis?Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraditional plaster-cast fabrication of an ankle-foot orthosis (AFO), although robust, is time-consuming and cumbersome. 3D scanning is quickly gaining attention as an alternative to plaster casting the foot and ankle region for AFO fabrication. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and speed of two high-performing 3D scanners compared with plaster casting in pediatric patients requiring an AFO.
methodsTen participants (mean age 10.0 ± 3.9 years) prescribed AFOs for a movement disorder were 3D scanned with the high-cost Artec Eva (Eva) and low-cost Structure Sensor II (SSII) using one-person (1p) and two-person (2p) protocols. Accuracy and speed for both 3D scanners were compared with corresponding plaster cast measures (≤5% acceptable difference). Bland and Altman plots were generated to show mean bias and limits of agreement.
resultsOverall, Eva and SSII were accurate for foot, ankle, and lower leg key clinical landmarks (Eva-1p: 4.4 ± 7.3%; Eva-2p: 3.2 ± 7.5%; SSII-1p: 0.6 ± 7.4%; SSII-2p: 0.7 ± 8.2%). Bland and Altman plots for the SSII demonstrated lower biases for 1p (bias 0.5 mm, LoA: -12.4-13.5 mm) and 2p (0.4 mm, LoA: -11.4-12.2 mm) protocols compared with Eva for 1p (bias 2.3 mm, LoA: -8.0-12.7 mm) and 2p (1.8 mm, LoA: -10.7-14.3 mm) protocols. The SSII 2p protocol was the fastest 3D scanning method (26.4 ± 11.1 s).
conclusionsThe high-cost Eva and low-cost SSII 3D scanners using the 1p and 2p protocols produced comparable accuracy and faster capture of key clinical landmarks compared with plaster cast measures for the fabrication of AFOs in pediatric patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.