advertising
-
1.
Dunn JE: Prevalence of foot and ankle conditions in a multiethnic community sample of older adults. Am J Epidemiol 159: 491, 2004.
-
2.
Hill CL , Gill TK & Menz HB et al.: Prevalence and correlates of foot pain in a population-based study: the North West Adelaide health study. J Foot Ankle Res 1: 2, 2008.
-
3.
Rome K , Howe T & Haslock I: Risk factors associated with the development of plantar heel pain in athletes. The Foot 11: 119, 2001.
-
4.
Taunton JE: A retrospective case-control analysis of 2002 running injuries. Br J Sports Med 36: 95, 2002.
-
5.
Irving DB , Cook JL & Menz HB: Factors associated with chronic plantar heel pain: a systematic review. J Sci Med Sport 9: 11, 2006.
-
6.
van Leeuwen KDB , Rogers J & Winzenberg T et al.: Higher body mass index is associated with plantar fasciopathy/‘plantar fasciitis': systematic review and meta-analysis of various clinical and imaging risk factors. Br J Sports Med 50: 972, 2016.
-
7.
Martin RL , Davenport TE & Reischl SF et al.: Heel pain—plantar fasciitis: revision 2014. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 44: A1, 2014.
-
8.
Bonanno DR , Landorf KB & Menz HB: Pressure-relieving properties of various shoe inserts in older people with plantar heel pain. Gait Posture 33: 385, 2011.
-
9.
Chia JK , Suresh S & Phua JM et al.: Comparative trial of the foot pressure patterns between corrective orthotics, formthotics, bone spur pads and flat insoles in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. Ann Acad Med Singap 38: 869, 2009.
-
10.
McMillan A & Payne C: Effect of foot orthoses on lower extremity kinetics during running: a systematic literature review. J Foot Ankle Res 1: 13, 2008.
-
11.
Mills K , Blanch P & Chapman AR et al.: Foot orthoses and gait: a systematic review and meta-analysis of literature pertaining to potential mechanisms. Br J Sports Med 44: 1035, 2010.
-
12.
Murley GS , Landorf KB & Menz HB et al.: Effect of foot posture, foot orthoses and footwear on lower limb muscle activity during walking and running: a systematic review. Gait Posture 29: 172, 2009.
-
13.
Bonanno DR , Landorf KB & Munteanu SE et al.: Effectiveness of foot orthoses and shock-absorbing insoles for the prevention of injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 51: 86, 2017.
-
14.
Ritchie C , Paterson K & Bryant AL et al.: The effects of enhanced plantar sensory feedback and foot orthoses on midfoot kinematics and lower leg neuromuscular activation. Gait Posture 33: 576, 2011.
-
15.
Rebouh C: Principaux matériaux utilisés dans les orthèses plantaires. Podologie [published online, 2008; doi: 10.1016/S0292-062X(08)41965-7].
-
16.
Mavroidis C , Ranky RG & Sivak ML et al.: Patient specific ankle-foot orthoses using rapid prototyping. J Neuroeng Rehabil 8: 1, 2011.
-
17.
Pallari JHP , Dalgarno KW & Woodburn J: Mass customization of foot orthoses for rheumatoid arthritis using selective laser sintering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 57: 1750, 2010.
-
18.
Telfer S , Abbott M & Steultjens MPM et al.: Dose–response effects of customised foot orthoses on lower limb kinematics and kinetics in pronated foot type. J Biomech 46: 1489, 2013.
-
19.
Telfer S , Gibson KS & Hennessy K et al.: Computer-aided design of customized foot orthoses: reproducibility and effect of method used to obtain foot shape. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 93: 863, 2012.
-
20.
Telfer S , Pallari J & Munguia J et al.: Embracing additive manufacture: implications for foot and ankle orthosis design. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13: 84, 2012.
-
21.
Dombroski CE , Balsdon ME & Froats A: The use of a low cost 3D scanning and printing tool in the manufacture of custom-made foot orthoses: a preliminary study. BMC Res Notes 7: 443, 2014.
-
22.
Ge Q , Sakhaei AH & Lee H et al.: Multimaterial 4D printing with tailorable shape memory polymers. Sci Rep 6: 31110, 2016.
-
23.
Oftadeh R , Haghpanah B & Vella D et al.: Optimal fractal-like hierarchical honeycombs. Phys Rev Lett 113: 104301, 2014.
-
24.
Ajdari A , Jahromi BH & Papadopoulos J et al.: Hierarchical honeycombs with tailorable properties. Int J Solids Struct 49: 1413, 2012.
-
25.
Wang K , Chang Y-H & Chen Y et al.: Designable dual-material auxetic metamaterials using three-dimensional printing. Materials Design 67: 159, 2015.
-
26.
Bates SRG & Farrow IR Trask RS: 3D printed polyurethane honeycombs for repeated tailored energy absorption. Materials Design 112: 172, 2016.
-
27.
Meththananda IM , Parker S & Patel MP et al.: The relationship between Shore hardness of elastomeric dental materials and Young's modulus. Dental Materials 25: 956, 2009.
-
28.
Bassi AC , Casa F & Mendichi R: Shore A hardness and thickness. Polymer Test 7: 165, 1987.
Are Three-Dimensional–Printed Foot Orthoses Able to Cover the Podiatric Physician's Needs?
Relationship Between Shore A Hardness and Infilling Density
Search for other papers by Edem Allado in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mathias Poussel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Isabelle Chary-Valckenaere in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Clément Potier in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Damien Loeuille in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Eliane Albuisson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bruno Chenuel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background
Current management of foot pain requires foot orthoses (FOs) with various design features (eg, wedging, height) and specific mechanical properties (eg, hardness, volume). Development of additive manufacturing (three-dimensional [3-D] printing) raises the question of applying its technology to FO manufacturing. Recent studies have demonstrated the physical benefits of FO parts with specific mechanical properties, but none have investigated the relationship between honeycomb architecture (HcA) infilling density and Shore A hardness of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) used to make FOs, which is the aim of this study.
Methods
Sixteen different FO samples were made with a 3-D printer using TPU (97 Shore A), with HcA infilling density ranging from 10 to 40. The mean of two Shore A hardness measurements was used in regression analysis.
Results
Interdurometer reproducibility was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64–0.98; P < .001) and interprinter reproducibility was excellent/good (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.43–0.96; P < .001). Linear regression showed a positive significant relationship between Shore A hardness and HcA infilling density (R2 = 0.955; P < .001). Concordance between evaluator and durometer was 86.7%.
Conclusions
This study revealed a strong relationship between Shore A hardness and HcA infilling density of TPU parts produced by 3-D printing and highlighted excellent concordance. These results are clinically relevant because 3-D printing can cover Shore A hardness values ranging from 40 to 70, representing most FO production needs. These results could provide important data for 3-D manufacturing of FOs to match the population needs.
University Center of Sports Medicine and Adapted Physical Activity, University Hospital of Nancy, Nancy, France.
Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital of Nancy, Nancy, France.
Development, Adaptation and Disadvantage, Cardiorespiratory Regulations and Motor Control, University of Lorraine, Nancy, France.
Vence Podiatry, Vence, France.
Université de Lorraine, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut Élie Cartan de Lorraine, Nancy, France.
Université de Lorraine, Faculté de Médecine, InSciDenS, Nancy, France.
Conflict of Interest: None reported.
advertising
