Bernard MA, Goldsmith H, Curnick KL, et al: Prescription of Custom Foot Orthoses Practice Guidelines, American College of Foot and Ankle Orthopedics and Medicine, Ellicott City, MD. ,2002. .
Ball KA, Afheldt MJ: Evolution of foot orthotics: part 1. Coherent theory or coherent practice?. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 25::116. ,2002. .
Donatelli R, Hulbert C, Connaway D: Biomechanical foot orthotics: a retrospective study. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 10::205. ,1988. .
Landorf K, Keenan AM, Rushworth RL: Foot orthosis prescription habits of Australian and New Zealand podiatric physicians. .JAPMA 91::174. ,2001. .
Payne C, Chuter V: The clash between theory and science on the kinematic effectiveness of foot orthoses. .Clin Podiatr Med Surg 18::705. ,2001. .
McPoil TG, Schuit D, Knecht HG: Comparison of three methods used to obtain a neutral plaster foot impression. .Phys Ther 69::448. ,1989. .
Laughton C, McClay Davis I, Williams DS: A comparison of four methods of obtaining a negative impression of the foot. .JAPMA 92::261. ,2002. .
Basque MG, Nasadowski R, Johnson RE: Neutral position casting techniques: results of a survey. .JAPMA 79::330. ,1989. .
Scherer PR: Custom orthoses: I don’t want to leave you with a bad impression. BioMechanics 5. ,1996. .
Sobel E, Levitz SJ: Reappraisal of the negative impression cast and the subtalar joint neutral position. .JAPMA 87::32. ,1997. .
Berenter R: Improving and evaluating negative casts for orthotics. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Foot Biomechanics and Orthotic Therapy, Prescription Foot Orthotic Laboratory Association, October 12. ,2002. , Montreal.
Lee WE: Podiatric biomechanics: an historical appraisal and discussion of the Root model as a clinical system of approach in the present context of theoretical uncertainty. .Clin Podiatr Med Surg 18::555. ,2001. .
Price J: Clinical Guidelines for Orthotic Therapy Provided by Podiatrists, Australian Podiatry Council, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia. ,1998. .
Lord M, Hosein R: Pressure redistribution by moulded inserts in diabetic footwear: a pilot study. .J Rehabil Res Dev 31::214. ,1994. .
Wu KK: Foot Orthoses: Principles and Clinical Applications, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore. ,1990. .
Kato H, Takada T, Kawamura T, et al: The reduction and redistribution of plantar pressures using foot orthoses in diabetic patients. .Diabetes Res Clin Pract 31::115. ,1996. .
Cavanagh PR, Ulbrecht JS: “Biomechanics of the Foot in Diabetes Mellitus,” in The Diabetic Foot, 4th Ed, ed by ME Levin, LW O’Neal, JH Bowker, p 199, CV Mosby, St Louis. ,1994. .
Albert S, Rinoie C: Effect of custom orthotics on plantar pressure distribution in the pronated diabetic foot. .J Foot Ankle Surg 33::598. ,1994. .
Mueller MJ: Application of plantar pressure assessment in footwear and insert design. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 29::747. ,1999. .
Root ML, Weed JH, Orien WP: Neutral Position Casting Techniques, Clinical Biomechanics Corp, Los Angeles. ,1971. .
Valmassy R, Subotnick SL: “Orthoses,” in Sports Medicine of the Lower Extremity, 2nd Ed, ed by SL Subotnick, p 465, Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia. ,1999. .
Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB: Rear foot inversion/eversion during gait relative to the subtalar joint neutral position. .Foot Ankle Int 17::406. ,1996. .
Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB, Mlynarczyk JH: Proficiency of foot care specialists to place the rearfoot at subtalar neutral. .JAPMA 86::217. ,1996. .
Pierrynowski MR, Smith SB: Effect of patient position on the consistency of placing the rearfoot at subtalar neutral. .JAPMA 87::399. ,1997. .
Elveru RA, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL, et al: Methods for taking subtalar joint measurements: a clinical report. .Phys Ther 68::678. ,1988. .
Elveru RA, Rothstein JM, Lamb RL: Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting: subtalar and ankle joint measurements. .Phys Ther 68::672. ,1988. .
Miller M, McGuire J: Literature reveals no consensus on subtalar neutral. .BioMechanics 7::63. ,2000. .
Cook KJ: “A Comparative Study in Podiatric Orthotic Fabrication Between the United Kingdom and Finland,” in Podiatry at Nene-University College, p 79, Northhampton University, Northhampton, England. ,1999. .
Berenter R: Comparing negative casting techniques: foam versus plaster of Paris. Available at http://acfaom.org/research.shtml. Accessed December 16. ,2003. .
Langer S: Correct use of foam box casting. BioMechanics. ,1996. .
Chuter V, Payne C, Miller K: Variability of neutral-position casting of the foot. .JAPMA 93::1. ,2003. .
Burns MJ: Non-weightbearing cast impressions for the construction of orthotic devices. .JAPA 67::790. ,1977. .
Cummings GS, Higbie EJ: A weight bearing method for determining fore foot posting for orthotic fabrication. .Physiother Res Int 2::42. ,1997. .
Root ML: Development of the functional orthosis. .Clin Podiatr Med Surg 11::183. ,1994. .
Guldemond N, Walenkamp G, Leffers P, et al: Peak pressure reduction by custom-made insoles from three professional groups in the Netherlands. Paper presented at the Third Diabetic Foot Study Group Business Meeting, September 8. ,2001. , Crieff, Scotland.
Kuhn DR, Shibley NJ, Austin WM, et al: Radiographic evaluation of weight-bearing orthotics and their effect on flexible pes planus. .J Manipulative Physiol Ther 22::221. ,1999. .
Johanson EM: “Gait Laboratory: Structure and Data Gathering,” in Human Walking, 2nd Ed, ed by JR Rose, JG Gamble, p 203, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore. ,1994. .
Nigg BM: “Pressure Distribution,” in Biomechanics of the Musculo-Skeletal System, ed by BM Nigg, W Herzog, p 200, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England. ,1994. .
Redmond A, Lumb PS, Landorf K: Effect of cast and noncast foot orthoses on plantar pressure and force during normal gait. .JAPMA 90::441. ,2000. .
Chen WP, Ju CW, Tang FT: Effects of total contact insoles on the plantar stress redistribution: a finite element analysis. .Clin Biomech Bristol, Avon 18::S17. ,2003. .
Hayafune N, Hayafune Y, Jacob HAC: Pressure and force distribution characteristics under the normal foot during the push-off phase in gait. .The Foot 9::88. ,1999. .
Bryant AR, Tinley P, Singer KP: Normal values of plantar pressure measurements determined using the EMED-SF system. .JAPMA 90::295. ,2000. .
Rodgers MM: Plantar Pressure Distribution Measurement During Barefoot Walking: Normal Values and Predictive Equations [dissertation], Penn State University, University Park, PA. ,1985. .
Sloss R: The effect of foot orthoses on the ground reaction forces during walking. .The Foot 11::205. ,2002. .
Scherer PR, Sobiesk GA: The centre of pressure index in the evaluation of foot orthoses in shoes. .Clin Podiatr Med Surg 11::355. ,1994. .
Kirby KA: Subtalar joint axis location and rotational equilibrium theory of foot function. .JAPMA 91::465. ,2001. .
Kirby KA: Foot and Lower-Extremity Biomechanics: A Ten-Year Collection of Precision Intricast Newsletters, Precision Intricast, Payson, AZ. ,1997. .
Fuller EA: Center of pressure and its theoretical relationship to foot pathology. .JAPMA 89::278. ,1999. .
Payne CB: The past, present, and future of podiatric biomechanics. .JAPMA 88::53. ,1998. .
Foot orthoses are widely used to treat various foot problems. A literature search revealed no publications on differences in plantar pressure distribution resulting from casting methods for foot orthoses. Four casting methods were used for construction of orthoses. Two foam box techniques were used: accommodative full weightbearing method (A) and functional semiweightbearing method (B). Also, two suspension plaster casting techniques were used: accommodative casting (C) and functional subtalar joint neutral position (Root) method (D). Their effects on contact area, plantar pressure, and walking convenience were evaluated. All orthoses increased the total contact area (mean, 17.4%) compared with shoes without orthoses. Differences in contact areas between orthoses for total plantar surface were statistically significant. Peak pressures for the total plantar surface were lower with orthoses than without orthoses (mean, 22.8%). Among orthoses, only the difference between orthoses A and B was statistically significant. Differences between orthoses for the forefoot were small and not statistically significant. The gait lines of the shoe without an insole and of the accommodative orthoses are more medially located than those of functional orthoses. Walking convenience in the shoe was better rated than that with orthoses. There were no differences in perception of walking convenience between orthoses A, B, and C. Orthosis D had the lowest convenience rating. The four casting methods resulted in differences between orthoses with respect to contact areas and walking convenience but only slight differences in peak pressures. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 96(1): 9–18, 2006)