Does Scanner Choice Matter for the Design of Foot Orthosis?

Chhikara, Komal; Suresh, Sinduja; Morrison, Scott; Hartley, Dean; Evans, Kerrie; Wille, Marie-Luise; Teixeira, Müge Belek Fialho; Hughes, Bridget; Haskell, Natalie; Beatson, Amanda; Chamorro-Koc, Marianella; Little, Judith Paige

doi:10.3390/s25030869

This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.

Open AccessArticle

Does Scanner Choice Matter for the Design of Foot Orthosis?

by

Komal Chhikara

^1,2,3,*,†,

Sinduja Suresh

^1,2,3,4,†

,

Scott Morrison

⁵,

Dean Hartley

^5,6

,

Kerrie Evans

^6,7

,

Marie-Luise Wille

^1,2,3

,

Müge Belek Fialho Teixeira

⁸

,

Bridget Hughes

⁹,

Natalie Haskell

^10,11,

Amanda Beatson

¹²

,

Marianella Chamorro-Koc

^10,13

and

Judith Paige Little

^1,2,3,4

¹

School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia

²

Centre for Biomedical Technologies, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia

³

ARC Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia

⁴

Biomechanics & Spine Research Group at the Centre for Children’s Health Research, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia

⁵

iOrthotics, Brisbane, QLD 4030, Australia

⁶

Healthia Limited, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia

⁷

Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

⁸

School of Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia

⁹

School of Education, Faculty of Creative Industries, Education, and Social Justice, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia

¹⁰

School of Design, Faculty of Creative Industries, Education and Social Justice, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia

¹¹

School of Architecture, Industrial Design and Planning, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia

¹²

QUT Business School, Centre for Decent Work and Industry (CDWI), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia

¹³

QUT Design Lab, Faculty of Creative Industries, Education and Social Justice, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4059, Australia

Show full affiliation list

Hide full affiliation list

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

^†

These authors contributed equally to this work.

Sensors 2025, 25(3), 869; https://doi.org/10.3390/s25030869

Submission received: 18 December 2024 / Revised: 24 January 2025 / Accepted: 27 January 2025 / Published: 31 January 2025

(This article belongs to the Collection 3D Imaging and Sensing System)

Download Versions Notes

Abstract

A variety of 3D volumetric scanners and smart-device applications are currently being used in podiatry for recording virtual foot data. The accuracy and reliability of these devices vary, resulting in a large variation in the quality of foot scans used for orthotic design. While it is widely believed that a higher quality scanner yields a better scan and thus is expected to produce a more accurate orthotic design, the direct impact of scanning quality on orthotic design has not yet been tested. Therefore, in this study, three commonly used industrial 3D scanners with varying output qualities were used to obtain foot scans of three participants in two weight-bearing conditions. A total of 54 foot scans were obtained, out of which 18 were used to design orthotic insoles using commercial software (FitFoot360). We found variation in the quality of foot scans produced by the different scanners (61.75 ± 2.23% similarity of the foot scans showing a deviation of less than ±1 mm). However, there were no significant differences in the designed foot orthoses within the same weight-bearing condition (83.59 ± 1.97% similarity of the orthotic designs showing a deviation of less than ±1 mm). The medial arch height and heel width differed significantly only when the weight-bearing condition was changed. The findings from this study suggest that the industrial design and production of an orthotic insole using current methods does not depend on the scanning quality of the scanner used but is dependent on the extent of weight bearing.

Keywords: foot; orthoses; three-dimensional; geometry; scanning; orthotic design

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chhikara, K.; Suresh, S.; Morrison, S.; Hartley, D.; Evans, K.; Wille, M.-L.; Teixeira, M.B.F.; Hughes, B.; Haskell, N.; Beatson, A.; et al. Does Scanner Choice Matter for the Design of Foot Orthosis? Sensors 2025, 25, 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25030869

AMA Style

Chhikara K, Suresh S, Morrison S, Hartley D, Evans K, Wille M-L, Teixeira MBF, Hughes B, Haskell N, Beatson A, et al. Does Scanner Choice Matter for the Design of Foot Orthosis? Sensors. 2025; 25(3):869. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25030869

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chhikara, Komal, Sinduja Suresh, Scott Morrison, Dean Hartley, Kerrie Evans, Marie-Luise Wille, Müge Belek Fialho Teixeira, Bridget Hughes, Natalie Haskell, Amanda Beatson, and et al. 2025. "Does Scanner Choice Matter for the Design of Foot Orthosis?" Sensors 25, no. 3: 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25030869

APA Style

Chhikara, K., Suresh, S., Morrison, S., Hartley, D., Evans, K., Wille, M.-L., Teixeira, M. B. F., Hughes, B., Haskell, N., Beatson, A., Chamorro-Koc, M., & Little, J. P. (2025). Does Scanner Choice Matter for the Design of Foot Orthosis? Sensors, 25(3), 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25030869

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

Does Scanner Choice Matter for the Design of Foot Orthosis?

Abstract

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI