Cad Cam responses
Eric Eisenberg
Description
Collection
Title:
Cad Cam responses
Creator:
Eric Eisenberg
Date:
2/18/2011
Text:
Here are the responses to my CAD CAM post, the original post is first. Very few responses:
I am interested in hearing from practitioners and business owners about the use of Cad Cam in your practices. Specifically how do you feel Cad Cam has made you more efficient? Do you think the cost justifies the investment? What systems are you using, likes and dislikes? Could a system possibly be utilized instead of adding another practitioner? We continue to look at Cad in our practice but continue to end in the same conclusion, the only thing it seems to do is possibly eliminate modifying plaster molds. Additionally I have spoken to numerous companies who have complete systems who tell me they still modify plaster. Does anybody truly use their system for AFO's specifically pediatrics? I will post replies to the list. any and all information will be helpful.
I too have looked into Cad many times and have concluded that it would only add expenses because I would now need to C fab my test sockets unless I wanted to buy the very expensive Mill. Cad would only save me about 30 minutes of modify time. Not enough to justify the expense. Looks like you will add that time to your evaluation with all the computer data entry. Another negative is when I hand cast I can push and shape the actual limb. With Cad your doing an educated guess on this.
I think cad greatest potential is in record keeping. I think
it's least poptential is in soft tissue mangaement
As a former CAD/CAM engineer before I was a clinician, CAD/CAM for O & P is certainly a very different proposition. I have seen some practices totally go with a CAD system and eliminate plaster as a dogma. I think there are very real limitation to CAD in how we visualize the shape still on the 2D screen. There are many different systems, but I think they are all used differently when it comes to the level.
The areas I think CAD is still struggling is very tight areas and acute radii. The shape fits adequately, but often seems to be lacking. CAD has the opposite of effect of plaster proprioceptively to the modifier. Plaster is inherently hard so it is difficult to gage the amount of compression. A virtual image has no resistance and even structural things can be eliminated in the blink of the eye.
I am really intrigued by the new 3-D systems that give resistance or a sense of feeling the virtual shape. Rodin 4D allows this and so did a system I saw in Germany called BioSys. A 3D digitizer made modifications to a virtual object that the modifier could feel. Other applications do not need this intricacy when making a shape with measurements or estimation.
Hope that helps,
I am interested in hearing from practitioners and business owners about the use of Cad Cam in your practices. Specifically how do you feel Cad Cam has made you more efficient? Do you think the cost justifies the investment? What systems are you using, likes and dislikes? Could a system possibly be utilized instead of adding another practitioner? We continue to look at Cad in our practice but continue to end in the same conclusion, the only thing it seems to do is possibly eliminate modifying plaster molds. Additionally I have spoken to numerous companies who have complete systems who tell me they still modify plaster. Does anybody truly use their system for AFO's specifically pediatrics? I will post replies to the list. any and all information will be helpful.
I too have looked into Cad many times and have concluded that it would only add expenses because I would now need to C fab my test sockets unless I wanted to buy the very expensive Mill. Cad would only save me about 30 minutes of modify time. Not enough to justify the expense. Looks like you will add that time to your evaluation with all the computer data entry. Another negative is when I hand cast I can push and shape the actual limb. With Cad your doing an educated guess on this.
I think cad greatest potential is in record keeping. I think
it's least poptential is in soft tissue mangaement
As a former CAD/CAM engineer before I was a clinician, CAD/CAM for O & P is certainly a very different proposition. I have seen some practices totally go with a CAD system and eliminate plaster as a dogma. I think there are very real limitation to CAD in how we visualize the shape still on the 2D screen. There are many different systems, but I think they are all used differently when it comes to the level.
The areas I think CAD is still struggling is very tight areas and acute radii. The shape fits adequately, but often seems to be lacking. CAD has the opposite of effect of plaster proprioceptively to the modifier. Plaster is inherently hard so it is difficult to gage the amount of compression. A virtual image has no resistance and even structural things can be eliminated in the blink of the eye.
I am really intrigued by the new 3-D systems that give resistance or a sense of feeling the virtual shape. Rodin 4D allows this and so did a system I saw in Germany called BioSys. A 3D digitizer made modifications to a virtual object that the modifier could feel. Other applications do not need this intricacy when making a shape with measurements or estimation.
Hope that helps,
Citation
Eric Eisenberg, “Cad Cam responses,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 5, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/232280.
