Factors Affecting Thickness of Prosthetic Socket in Thermoforming Fabrication

Article Preview

Abstract:

Nowadays, there are two socket fabrication methods in Thailand, which are resin casting and thermal vacuum method. The thermal vacuum forming method has more advantages than the resin casting method that ruins technicians' health from the volatile matter. Nevertheless, the thermal vacuum forming method can fabricate the socket with poor wall thickness distribution. The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of the feed rate of stump mould and the temperature distribution of the plastic sheet on the prosthetic socket wall thickness during the thermal vacuum forming process. The feed rates of stump mould were varied by using an industrial robot. The temperature distribution of the plastic sheet was controlled by circular and annular fiberglass insulators placed in its center. The results showed that the prosthetic socket wall thickness increases around the central area of the socket with a decreased feed rate of stump mould. The annular insulator increases the wall thickness slightly, while the circular insulator increases the thickness significantly. The wall thickness at the thinnest location increased from 1.6 mm up to 2.8 mm. In addition, wall thicknesses of areas beneath the circular insulator increased significantly between the marked positions-25 through +25.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Pages:

159-163

Citation:

Online since:

April 2015

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2015 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

* - Corresponding Author

[1] M. B. Silver-Thorn and D. S. Childress: J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. Vol. 33 (1996), pp.227-238.

Google Scholar

[2] D.P. Reynolds and M. Lord: Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. Vol. 30 (1992), pp.419-426.

Google Scholar

[3] G. Colombo, S. Filippi, *, C. Rizzi and F. Rotini: Comput. Ind. Vol. 61 (2010), pp.513-523.

Google Scholar

[4] E. S. Neumann: J. Prosthet. Orthot. Vol. 13 (2001), pp.99-110.

Google Scholar

[5] M. C. Faustini, R. R. Neptune and R. H. Crawford: Med. Eng. Phys. Vol. 28 (2006), pp.114-121.

Google Scholar

[6] S. K. Radi and H. F. Neama: J. Eng. Dev. Vol. 12 (2008), pp.127-136.

Google Scholar

[7] D. Freeman and L. Wontorcik: J. Prosthet. Orthot. Vol. 10 (1998), pp.17-20.

Google Scholar