Impression Methods for Custom Foot Orthoses—Comparing Semi–Weight-Bearing Foam and Non–Weight-Bearing Plaster Using a Kinematic Measurement of the Medial Longitudinal Arch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION One of the goals for custom foot orthoses (CFOs) is to provide relief for pressure-sensitive areas and provide support to the joints of the foot for an optimal weight-bearing position. The most common CFO impression methods used by practitioners include plaster bandage, foam box, fiberglass, and laser-optical scanning, and are often compared by measuring foot molds created from those methods. The objective of this study is to compare the biomechanical effects of CFOs made from two common casting methods using skeletal kinematics. MATERIALS AND METHODS The medial longitudinal arch (MLA) angle was measured for 13 participants of different foot types: five pes planus, four pes cavus, and four normally arched. Four conditions were compared: barefoot, shod, and CFOs made from both semi-weight-bearing foam and non-weight-bearing plaster casting methods. The MLA angle was measured from three-dimensional bone models using biplane fluoroscopy images during midstance. RESULTS Foam ( P = 0.02) and plaster ( P = 0.01) cast foot orthoses were significantly different from the barefoot condition, and the shod condition was significantly different from both foam ( P = 0.004) and plaster ( P = 0.014) cast orthoses. No statistically significant differences were found when comparing the two casting methods: non-weight-bearing plaster and semi-weight-bearing foam ( P = 0.170). CONCLUSIONS Clinicians favoring one particular style of casting can feel confident, for the patient set described, that either choice will produce similar biomechanical outcomes with respect to foot kinematics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".