Cost Benefits and Accuracy of 3D Scanning for Patient Specific Orthoses
– Literature Review
There are some benefits that come with 3D scanning over foam and plaster casts. The most apparent benefit is cost. The plaster cast method can cost between $27.94 - $49.60 while a 3D scan costs between $3.30 - $10 on average. The cost of resources becomes considerably lower since most labs offer free 3D scanning tools.
The second benefit of 3D scanning is time. Plaster casting takes approximately 10 minutes while a 3D scan can take less than two minutes. The digital process of scanning and ordering patient specific orthoses also eliminates the time needed for placing a physical order allowing patients to receive their orthoses sooner.
For the source and more information on the financial and time cost comparison of scanning and plaster we recommend the paper in the references by Payne (2007). These costs were from 2007 and with newer technology the costs of scanning have come down considerably since then.
1. Infrared camera, 2. Flood Illuminator, 3. Dot Projector
The scanning technologies mentioned above used older models of industrial 3D scanners, while KevinRoot Medical uses the more portable iPhone and iPad Pro with Apple’s TrueDepth camera for Foot ID. At KevinRoot Medical, we offer the apps Foot ID for the iPhone and iPad Pro and KevinRoot Scan for the iPad. A library of video tutorials outlining how to sign up and open an account with KevinRoot Medical and how to use the iPhone and iPad applications is available.
The efficacy of 3D scanning is often inaccurately perceived as unreliable when compared to other impression methods for obtaining foot molds including plaster casting. Commercial Apple scanners are often seen as less reliable than standard industrial scanners, but this is incorrect.
Apple iPhone’s TrueDepth scanning system is in consideration for other clinical usages including grading symmetries of facial movement disorders (Taeger, 2021). These scanners were shown to find reliable symmetries and asymmetries with few runtime errors under suboptimal observational conditions.
On comparing the efficacy of the TrueDepth camera system with industrial 3D scanners, Vogt (2021) provides good research showing that the iPad Pro TrueDepth camera provides competitive accuracy and a slightly higher deviation of accuracy when compared to the industrial Artec Space Spider scanner. Industrial scanners when available are still preferable to the TrueDepth camera system, but at a much lower cost, Apple’s TrueDepth camera system are effective and practical.
Figure 1.
Scanner Accuracy Comparison of the determined position and profile tolerance values of different Lego bricks scanned by Artec Space Spider and the iPad Pro (2020) using TrueDepth. Data/Image Source: Maximilian Vogt. Licensed under CC-BY-4.0.
For more information we recommend the references below and this article on PodiatryToday by Jeffrey A. Ross titled Scanning Technology And Orthotic Casting: What You Should Know : https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/podiatry/scanning-technology-and-orthotic-casting-what-you-should-know
References:
Lee, Y. C., Lin, G., Wang, M. J. (2014) Comparing 3D foot scanning with conventional measurement methods. J Foot Ankle Res. 7(1):44.
Payne, C. B. (2007). Cost benefit comparison of plaster casts and optical scans of the foot for the manufacture of foot orthoses. Australas J Podiatr Med. 41(2):29-31.
Ross, J. A., (2018) Scanning technology and orthotic casting: What you should know. Podiatry Today.
Taeger, J., Bischoff, S., Hagen, R., et al. (2021). Utilization of smartphone depth mapping cameras for app-based grading of facial movement disorders: Development and feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 9(1).
Vogt, M., Rips, A., Emmelmann, C. (2021). Comparison of iPad Pro’s LiDAR and TrueDepth capabilities with an industrial 3D scanning solution. Technologies. 9(25).
Cost Benefits and Accuracy of 3D Scanning for Patient Specific Orthoses
– Literature Review
There are some benefits that come with 3D scanning over foam and plaster casts. The most apparent benefit is cost. The plaster cast method can cost between $27.94 - $49.60 while a 3D scan costs between $3.30 - $10 on average. The cost of resources becomes considerably lower since most labs offer free 3D scanning tools.
The second benefit of 3D scanning is time. Plaster casting takes approximately 10 minutes while a 3D scan can take less than two minutes. The digital process of scanning and ordering patient specific orthoses also eliminates the time needed for placing a physical order allowing patients to receive their orthoses sooner.
For the source and more information on the financial and time cost comparison of scanning and plaster we recommend the paper in the references by Payne (2007). These costs were from 2007 and with newer technology the costs of scanning have come down considerably since then.
1. Infrared camera
2. Flood Illuminator
3. Dot Projector
The scanning technologies mentioned above used older models of industrial 3D scanners, while KevinRoot Medical uses the more portable iPhone and iPad Pro with Apple’s TrueDepth camera for Foot ID. At KevinRoot Medical, we offer the apps Foot ID for the iPhone and iPad Pro and KevinRoot Scan for the iPad. A library of video tutorials outlining how to sign up and open an account with KevinRoot Medical and how to use the iPhone and iPad applications is available.
The efficacy of 3D scanning is often inaccurately perceived as unreliable when compared to other impression methods for obtaining foot molds including plaster casting. Commercial Apple scanners are often seen as less reliable than standard industrial scanners, but this is incorrect.
Apple iPhone’s TrueDepth scanning system is in consideration for other clinical usages including grading symmetries of facial movement disorders (Taeger, 2021). These scanners were shown to find reliable symmetries and asymmetries with few runtime errors under suboptimal observational conditions.
On comparing the efficacy of the TrueDepth camera system with industrial 3D scanners, Vogt (2021) provides good research showing that the iPad Pro TrueDepth camera provides competitive accuracy and a slightly higher deviation of accuracy when compared to the industrial Artec Space Spider scanner. Industrial scanners when available are still preferable to the TrueDepth camera system, but at a much lower cost, Apple’s TrueDepth camera system are effective and practical.
Figure 1.
Scanner Accuracy Comparison of the determined position and profile tolerance values of different Lego bricks scanned by Artec Space Spider and the iPad Pro (2020) using TrueDepth. Data/Image Source: Maximilian Vogt. Licensed under CC-BY-4.0.
For more information we recommend the references below and this article on PodiatryToday by Jeffrey A. Ross titled Scanning Technology And Orthotic Casting: What You Should Know : https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/podiatry/scanning-technology-and-orthotic-casting-what-you-should-know
References:
Lee, Y. C., Lin, G., Wang, M. J. (2014) Comparing 3D foot scanning with conventional measurement methods. J Foot Ankle Res. 7(1):44.
Payne, C. B. (2007). Cost benefit comparison of plaster casts and optical scans of the foot for the manufacture of foot orthoses. Australas J Podiatr Med. 41(2):29-31.
Ross, J. A., (2018) Scanning technology and orthotic casting: What you should know. Podiatry Today.
Taeger, J., Bischoff, S., Hagen, R., et al. (2021). Utilization of smartphone depth mapping cameras for app-based grading of facial movement disorders: Development and feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 9(1).
Vogt, M., Rips, A., Emmelmann, C. (2021). Comparison of iPad Pro’s LiDAR and TrueDepth capabilities with an industrial 3D scanning solution. Technologies. 9(25).
Cost Benefits and Accuracy of 3D Scanning for Patient Specific Orthoses
– Literature Review
There are some benefits that come with 3D scanning over foam and plaster casts. The most apparent benefit is cost. The plaster cast method can cost between $27.94 - $49.60 while a 3D scan costs between $3.30 - $10 on average. The cost of resources becomes considerably lower since most labs offer free 3D scanning tools.
The second benefit of 3D scanning is time. Plaster casting takes approximately 10 minutes while a 3D scan can take less than two minutes. The digital process of scanning and ordering patient specific orthoses also eliminates the time needed for placing a physical order allowing patients to receive their orthoses sooner.
For the source and more information on the financial and time cost comparison of scanning and plaster we recommend the paper in the references by Payne (2007). These costs were from 2007 and with newer technology the costs of scanning have come down considerably since then.
1. Infrared camera
2. Flood Illuminator
3. Dot Projector
The scanning technologies mentioned above used older models of industrial 3D scanners, while KevinRoot Medical uses the more portable iPhone and iPad Pro with Apple’s TrueDepth camera for Foot ID. At KevinRoot Medical, we offer the apps Foot ID for the iPhone and iPad Pro and KevinRoot Scan for the iPad. A library of video tutorials outlining how to sign up and open an account with KevinRoot Medical and how to use the iPhone and iPad applications is available.
The efficacy of 3D scanning is often inaccurately perceived as unreliable when compared to other impression methods for obtaining foot molds including plaster casting. Commercial Apple scanners are often seen as less reliable than standard industrial scanners, but this is incorrect.
Apple iPhone’s TrueDepth scanning system is in consideration for other clinical usages including grading symmetries of facial movement disorders (Taeger, 2021). These scanners were shown to find reliable symmetries and asymmetries with few runtime errors under suboptimal observational conditions.
On comparing the efficacy of the TrueDepth camera system with industrial 3D scanners, Vogt (2021) provides good research showing that the iPad Pro TrueDepth camera provides competitive accuracy and a slightly higher deviation of accuracy when compared to the industrial Artec Space Spider scanner. Industrial scanners when available are still preferable to the TrueDepth camera system, but at a much lower cost, Apple’s TrueDepth camera system are effective and practical.
Figure 1.
Scanner Accuracy Comparison of the determined position and profile tolerance values of different Lego bricks scanned by Artec Space Spider and the iPad Pro (2020) using TrueDepth. Data/Image Source: Maximilian Vogt. Licensed under CC-BY-4.0.
For more information we recommend the references below and this article on PodiatryToday by Jeffrey A. Ross titled Scanning Technology And Orthotic Casting: What You Should Know : https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/podiatry/scanning-technology-and-orthotic-casting-what-you-should-know
References:
Lee, Y. C., Lin, G., Wang, M. J. (2014) Comparing 3D foot scanning with conventional measurement methods. J Foot Ankle Res. 7(1):44.
Payne, C. B. (2007). Cost benefit comparison of plaster casts and optical scans of the foot for the manufacture of foot orthoses. Australas J Podiatr Med. 41(2):29-31.
Ross, J. A., (2018) Scanning technology and orthotic casting: What you should know. Podiatry Today.
Taeger, J., Bischoff, S., Hagen, R., et al. (2021). Utilization of smartphone depth mapping cameras for app-based grading of facial movement disorders: Development and feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 9(1).
Vogt, M., Rips, A., Emmelmann, C. (2021). Comparison of iPad Pro’s LiDAR and TrueDepth capabilities with an industrial 3D scanning solution. Technologies. 9(25).