Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

I have come to the conclusion that I probably need to join the ranks and use a scanner for casting, instead of using plaster....feeling brave about this concept but have no idea about them, which is better than another, where to buy/lease etc (or even how to use the thing)?
Help/opinions please??

 

You need the one that is compatible with the lab you want to use. Ask the lab you use.

 

Genuine question as I'm curious: if you have no idea about them what has made you come to the conclusion that you need to use one instead of Plaster of Paris for your negative mould capture?

 

I have googled in the meantime....trouble is I use a couple of labs and they recommend different scanners. Now just wondering if there are any major differences between them....or do I change to another lab with another scanner type?

Griff- just thought it might be easier/quicker/cleaner than plaster.

 

All OreTek systems can receive scans in binary STL format, metric or imperial. Each client who wants to be able to import the data is assigned an email drop box for transmission, after which point it travels through the network to its destination site. OreTek RadScan is an Lpi (Line Plane Intersection) scanner capable of scanning casts, biofoams, positives and feet.

Before purchasing a scanner, I recommend seeing what your contractual obligations are in doing so. If the contract prohibits use with other labs and that data ends up in my network, I will most certainly respect the contract and inform the lab of the issue. If it is an open lab purchase, there are several in my network who would be happy to provide manufacturing services.

 

I've just begun dabbling with a scanner in one of my clinics. Is it quicker and cleaner than plaster? Absolutely. Easier? Depends on how tech savvy one is and also on how/if you like to manipulate the foot during capture.

The other question to ask yourself is how/if it may effect your end product - as ultimately this is what is most important. Well worth having a play with one first perhaps.

 

Hi Jos,
If you are based in the UK please feel free to check out our website or give us a call at Sole Precision, where we offer a range of scanning solutions with no set contract. We offer foam boxes, a foam box scanner or a 3D gel-bed scanner. We also direct mill in EVA and polyprop with competitive turnaround times and product quality.
Please check us out www.soleprecision.com
Thanks for your time,
Simon

 

One option that you may find valuable is the ability for to take a photograph of the patient's foot as you perform the 3d scan.

In doing so you may be able to mark up specify areas of the orthotic that you would like modified to accommodate the patients requirements.

Low scan times, ease of use, and ability to keep the foot from moving during scanning is probably more important to overall scan quality than high resolution and nominal scan accuracy. (just because a person can scan an object to a tenth of a mill doesn't mean they can scan accurately scan a foot that is being dangled above it.)

User interface software may also factor into consideration. Certain non-podiatric scanners have software that require splicing of multiple stl. files into a single image. This is certainly not acceptable for what you want to do with it.

best of luck in your selection!

 

Why not buy a scanner and milling system, cut the labs out and do it all on site yourself, save money and time?
Or at least buy a scanner "brand" that has a milling option you can take up later?

 

I'm not the most tech savy, so I use Slipper Socks for casting. They are really quick, easy and clean.
Just another option maybe?

 

Thanks for all the ideas!

Boots n all- I have no time nor room to do it all myself, but thanks for the input.
Tkemp- I have tried the socks but find that they can be a bit too thick-plaster conforms better.

Maybe I will stay with plaster for now......

 

Among the projects this year include adapting the structure.io scanner to output scans as an Android App, but I do expect mixed results, in particular with smaller feet. As a foot scanner, I think it would be too cumbersome if you're casting using traditional methods, but might well be suitable for scanning of plaster casts and biofoam. You don't seem like the kind who is willing to sacrifice on casting methods, which actually excludes many of the scanners, my own included until openings are added to the sides of my shroud assembly. Until we play with the structure.io device for a bit, it'll really be hard to say for sure it will provide what's needed, accurately, but I do think it's worth researching. In your case, based on your comments about the difference between plaster and the fiberglass socks, you probably wont want to switch to actual foot scanning, but would likely want a way to transmit your casts to a lab.