JAPMA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Laughton, C.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, D. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Laughton, C.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, D. S.
Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association Volume 92 Number 5 261-268 2002
Copyright © 2002 American Podiatric Medical Association

A Comparison of Four Methods of Obtaining a Negative Impression of the Foot

Carrie Laughton, MS*, Irene McClay Davis, PhD, PT{dagger} and Dorsey S. Williams, PhD, PT{ddagger}

* Biomechanist, Shriners Hospital, Philadelphia, PA.
{dagger} Director of Research, Joyner Sportsmedicine Institute, Harrisburg, PA; Associate Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, 305 McKinly Lab, Newark, DE 19716.
{ddagger} Assistant Professor, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

Abstract

Four methods are currently available for taking a negative impression of the foot for the purpose of fabricating an orthotic device: nonweightbearing plaster casting, partial-weightbearing foam impressions, and partial-weightbearing and nonweightbearing laser scanning. This study compares the reliability and accuracy of these methods. Each impression method was performed three times on each foot of 15 subjects. Measures of rearfoot and forefoot width, forefoot-to-rearfoot relationship, and arch height were obtained from the negative impressions. Additionally, rearfoot and forefoot width and forefoot-to-rearfoot relationship were measured clinically for each subject. This study found that 1) foot measures are significantly influenced by the method used to obtain a negative foot impression; 2) the methods differ in reliability; and 3) plaster casting may be preferable to the other three methods when it is important to capture the forefoot-to-rearfoot relationship, as in fabricating a functional orthosis. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 92(5): 261-268, 2002)




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.Home page
L. C. Trotter and M. R. Pierrynowski
Ability of Foot Care Professionals to Cast Feet Using the Nonweightbearing Plaster and the Gait-Referenced Foam Casting Techniques
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, January 1, 2008; 98(1): 14 - 18.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.Home page
N. A. Guldemond, P. Leffers, A. P. Sanders, H. Emmen, N. C. Schaper, and G. H. I. M. Walenkamp
Casting Methods and Plantar Pressure: Effects of Custom-made Foot Orthoses on Dynamic Plantar Pressure Distribution
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, January 1, 2006; 96(1): 9 - 18.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Podiatric Medical Association.