CAD CAM Results01
Charles H. Pritham
Description
Collection
Title:
CAD CAM Results01
Creator:
Charles H. Pritham
Date:
3/29/2006
Text:
Returns on my two posts have stopped coming in, so I have compiled the
results here in. Not too surprisingly, Tracer Cad and its successor Omega
are the most frequently mentioned system. Otto Bock's system seems to be the
second most frequently mentioned. For the record, I have used the Otto Bock
system for about six months now and am generally pleased with it. This is
one of two posts.
Charles H. Pritham, CPO
Worked with Tracer system for nearly 5 years and enjoyed every minute of it.
I had the luxury of having carver and thermoformer and Ortho Remidey for
finishing b.k. Believe it or not I was able to finish a b.k. in about 2
hours. Unfortunately the suggestion to expedite it were not acceptable to
the powers that were. It is possible to make a test socket under 2 to 5
minutes and definitive socket under 8 minutes with wate of material reduced
to within 2 to 4 percent. Tech time could be reduced to within 10 percent
of any method used today. Paradigm needs a shift before an idea will be
acceptable
***
We have been using BioSculptor for 10 years. We do 95% of all our
prosthetics and all our spinal on it. I have 2 work stations, 2 laser
imagers, 2 mills, a virtual casting unit and a Scorpion line scanner. We use
a PDI socket manufacturing unit (SMU auto-former).
All seven of our prosthetists use it daily. I would retire if I had to go
back to plaster. It is so much more efficient and accurate. I can do a TLSO
modification in 10 minutes and the finished positive model weighs around
15-20 lb. BK = 10 minutes, AK = 15 minutes. We rarely do a BK that not a
sheath fit. We rarely leave the office without modifying our models casted
that day!
Prior to using BioSculptor, I would have never believed that it would
actually do a better job than I could have done in plaster!
***
As a former CAD/CAM manufacturing engineer, I have been keenly interested in
what is going on with CAD. I think in recent years there has been a
diversification of how CAD is used based on the limb presentation. In the
past it was intended to have one system for all levels, but now systems are
adapted to the level. As an example transtibial use still emphasizes shape
and contour where transfemoral uses set shapes with volume fluctuation.
Digitizers have changed drastically to allow direct digitization rather than
indirectly digitizing a cast. This eliminates an additional step although it
is difficult to digitize the shape with loading. It would seem the latest
innovation uses both the radio field and laser hybrids. For volume the
mathematical modeling of profile and stripe contours also work well. The
problem remains with load bearing and recording the geometry when it is
loaded and that remains in the future. Also the software still depends on a
2-D flat screen to image it although MRI and CAT scans also still use a 2-D
scan, I think it makes it difficult to modify or with existing modeling
techniques. Computer gaming may help us to mold the limb with specially
made gloves which will enable us to manipulate the volume.
I have been using CAD/CAM for 16 years now. I started with Shapemaker and
ART equipment as a technician at a central fab. I learned everything about
the software and even became a beta tester for John Harlan. Creating the
templates for all of the different practitioners was the hardest thing at
the time and making all of the landmarks relate to each other every time was
a challenge at best. I now and for the last 10 years or so have been using
TracerCad. I have also been a beta tester for Greg Pratt when he owned it. I
use it now for not only patient care in my facility, but also as a system to
generate the many different kind of molds we use in manufacturing. I make
molds 40 inches long in my large carver. We are also patented on some
projects using cad to create a hollowing out of foam covers to match the
components we use.
If you study Cad and use it to your benefit, it's very worthwhile and
rewarding. If you expect it to solve all of your problems, it will most
likely let you down.
***
I use the Omega system, T-ring optical scanner. There is a definite
learning curve from traditional hands on, but like anything else, the
more you do the easier it becomes with consistent results and expectations
provided.
There are sufficient templates/shapes offered.... residual limbs can be
scanned and sockets designed from either a blend with the scanner info., or
from measurements. We have also had good results designing custom liners for
complicated cases.
Advantage is turn around time, in hospital, clinic..etc......setup and ready
for fitting in less than 24 hrs....no fuss, no muss....all of your patient
information readily available to reproduce or change at your fingertips
Not to sound like an advertisement, we are very satisfied with the entire
system and process.
You can now sit in your dentist's chair while he cad-cams and fits a
crown in less than 30 minutes. We have computer legs...digitally
capture, measure and analyze feet, gait, head shapes.....conventional x-rays
are becoming a thing of the past.
I believe this is the future of prosthetic design and fabrication. Because
in this computer based Internet world today, our patients/clients are well
educated, informed and are surrounded by a multitude of technological
advancements, and vast amount of information once unheard of. They are
looking for, and have come to expect this type of high tech service and
care.
I am fortunate to have this alternative option available for our
patients/clients. Having done conventional casting and plaster modification
for many years, I would hesitate to go back unless absolutely necessary.
***
I know your focus will be a bit different...) Although not strictly
clinical, I've been using it from the engineering and research tool
purpose, Can't get enough of it...
We can design prosthseses and cosmeses that are either difficult or
impossible to manufacture conventionally.
We can access (and have) advanced manufacturing techniques such as rapid 3d
prototyping.
We have a database of files that allows for investigations, education etc.
We have a databse of shareable files for components that can assist in the
manufacturing process...
and most of the work we can just put on the Net and share
<URL Redacted>
Charles H. Pritham, CPO
results here in. Not too surprisingly, Tracer Cad and its successor Omega
are the most frequently mentioned system. Otto Bock's system seems to be the
second most frequently mentioned. For the record, I have used the Otto Bock
system for about six months now and am generally pleased with it. This is
one of two posts.
Charles H. Pritham, CPO
Worked with Tracer system for nearly 5 years and enjoyed every minute of it.
I had the luxury of having carver and thermoformer and Ortho Remidey for
finishing b.k. Believe it or not I was able to finish a b.k. in about 2
hours. Unfortunately the suggestion to expedite it were not acceptable to
the powers that were. It is possible to make a test socket under 2 to 5
minutes and definitive socket under 8 minutes with wate of material reduced
to within 2 to 4 percent. Tech time could be reduced to within 10 percent
of any method used today. Paradigm needs a shift before an idea will be
acceptable
***
We have been using BioSculptor for 10 years. We do 95% of all our
prosthetics and all our spinal on it. I have 2 work stations, 2 laser
imagers, 2 mills, a virtual casting unit and a Scorpion line scanner. We use
a PDI socket manufacturing unit (SMU auto-former).
All seven of our prosthetists use it daily. I would retire if I had to go
back to plaster. It is so much more efficient and accurate. I can do a TLSO
modification in 10 minutes and the finished positive model weighs around
15-20 lb. BK = 10 minutes, AK = 15 minutes. We rarely do a BK that not a
sheath fit. We rarely leave the office without modifying our models casted
that day!
Prior to using BioSculptor, I would have never believed that it would
actually do a better job than I could have done in plaster!
***
As a former CAD/CAM manufacturing engineer, I have been keenly interested in
what is going on with CAD. I think in recent years there has been a
diversification of how CAD is used based on the limb presentation. In the
past it was intended to have one system for all levels, but now systems are
adapted to the level. As an example transtibial use still emphasizes shape
and contour where transfemoral uses set shapes with volume fluctuation.
Digitizers have changed drastically to allow direct digitization rather than
indirectly digitizing a cast. This eliminates an additional step although it
is difficult to digitize the shape with loading. It would seem the latest
innovation uses both the radio field and laser hybrids. For volume the
mathematical modeling of profile and stripe contours also work well. The
problem remains with load bearing and recording the geometry when it is
loaded and that remains in the future. Also the software still depends on a
2-D flat screen to image it although MRI and CAT scans also still use a 2-D
scan, I think it makes it difficult to modify or with existing modeling
techniques. Computer gaming may help us to mold the limb with specially
made gloves which will enable us to manipulate the volume.
I have been using CAD/CAM for 16 years now. I started with Shapemaker and
ART equipment as a technician at a central fab. I learned everything about
the software and even became a beta tester for John Harlan. Creating the
templates for all of the different practitioners was the hardest thing at
the time and making all of the landmarks relate to each other every time was
a challenge at best. I now and for the last 10 years or so have been using
TracerCad. I have also been a beta tester for Greg Pratt when he owned it. I
use it now for not only patient care in my facility, but also as a system to
generate the many different kind of molds we use in manufacturing. I make
molds 40 inches long in my large carver. We are also patented on some
projects using cad to create a hollowing out of foam covers to match the
components we use.
If you study Cad and use it to your benefit, it's very worthwhile and
rewarding. If you expect it to solve all of your problems, it will most
likely let you down.
***
I use the Omega system, T-ring optical scanner. There is a definite
learning curve from traditional hands on, but like anything else, the
more you do the easier it becomes with consistent results and expectations
provided.
There are sufficient templates/shapes offered.... residual limbs can be
scanned and sockets designed from either a blend with the scanner info., or
from measurements. We have also had good results designing custom liners for
complicated cases.
Advantage is turn around time, in hospital, clinic..etc......setup and ready
for fitting in less than 24 hrs....no fuss, no muss....all of your patient
information readily available to reproduce or change at your fingertips
Not to sound like an advertisement, we are very satisfied with the entire
system and process.
You can now sit in your dentist's chair while he cad-cams and fits a
crown in less than 30 minutes. We have computer legs...digitally
capture, measure and analyze feet, gait, head shapes.....conventional x-rays
are becoming a thing of the past.
I believe this is the future of prosthetic design and fabrication. Because
in this computer based Internet world today, our patients/clients are well
educated, informed and are surrounded by a multitude of technological
advancements, and vast amount of information once unheard of. They are
looking for, and have come to expect this type of high tech service and
care.
I am fortunate to have this alternative option available for our
patients/clients. Having done conventional casting and plaster modification
for many years, I would hesitate to go back unless absolutely necessary.
***
I know your focus will be a bit different...) Although not strictly
clinical, I've been using it from the engineering and research tool
purpose, Can't get enough of it...
We can design prosthseses and cosmeses that are either difficult or
impossible to manufacture conventionally.
We can access (and have) advanced manufacturing techniques such as rapid 3d
prototyping.
We have a database of files that allows for investigations, education etc.
We have a databse of shareable files for components that can assist in the
manufacturing process...
and most of the work we can just put on the Net and share
<URL Redacted>
Charles H. Pritham, CPO
Citation
Charles H. Pritham, “CAD CAM Results01,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 25, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/226320.
