Tag Archives: Foot orthoses

The application of generic CAD/CAM systems for the design and manufacture of foot orthoses

by Alfred Gatt PhD1,2*, Cynthia Formosa PhD1,2, Nachiappan Chockalingam PhD2,1pdflrg

The Foot and Ankle Online Journal 9 (3): 6

For many years, foot orthoses have been manufactured using traditional techniques over plaster of Paris casts or foam impressions. Other types of existing orthoses include pre-fabricated and heat-molded orthoses. More advanced methods of manufacturing orthoses have been developed using Computer Aided Design and Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology. However, this type of technology is still presently expensive and thus not available to the majority of practitioners to consider as part of their routine clinical service, notwithstanding the fact that these systems offer various advantages over traditional methods. This paper provides a new methodological approach towards integrating various readily-available technologies into a foot orthoses design and manufacturing system at a cost that is attainable by the majority of practitioners. This should encourage the further utilization of this technology, from which both practitioner services and patients could possibly benefit.   

Keywords: Foot orthoses, CAD/CAM, Computer Aided Manufacture and Computer Aided Design, inexpensive technology

ISSN 1941-6806
doi: 10.3827/faoj.2016.0903.0006

1 – Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Malta, Msida, Malta, MSD 2080
2 – Faculty of Health Sciences, Staffordshire University, Stoke on Trent, United Kingdom
* – Corresponding author: alfred.gatt@um.edu.mt

The management of foot pathology, such as heel pain, by orthotic therapy, is a major conservative intervention employed by practitioners [1]. Custom made orthoses are contoured, removable in-shoe devices that are molded or milled from an impression of the foot [2]. These are recognized as the current gold standard of treatment for lower limb and foot pathology since personalization is possible when compared with over-the-counter devices [3].

For many years orthoses have been manufactured over plaster of Paris casting or impression foam methods according to the practitioner’s specifications [4]. Generally, to manually fabricate custom orthoses is very time consuming and requires extensive technical ability, creating the risk of error [5].

Because of financial considerations or ease of availability, off-the-shelf orthoses may be recommended in order to reduce fabrication time, however often compromising the accuracy of the fit of the orthoses to the patient’s foot morphology [6], since these orthoses come in standard sizes and patients’ feet often have different anthropometric features, such as long, narrow feet as compared to short, wide feet.

Besides custom devices, there currently exist several different techniques for producing orthoses in clinical practice, ranging from “simple insoles”, which are flat, non-molded devices often chosen to provide patients with immediate treatment [7], to prefabricated foot orthoses, which are available in standard sizes, some of which can be heat moldable, utilizing the thermoforming properties of materials such as Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (www.vasylimedical.com; www.icbmedical.com). However, Majumdar et al [8] observed that prefabricated orthoses often failed to incorporate the anthropometric principles found in custom made orthoses.

Over the years, new, more advanced computerised methods of manufacturing foot orthoses have been developed, utilizing Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology. Although considered to be very costly, CAD/CAM technology has always been recognized as having great potential [9].

Manufacturers claim that CAD/CAM systems make orthoses manufacture easier and more reproducible, besides eliminating the messy techniques of working with plaster of Paris. Such systems often incorporate a scanner, software and milling machine. One important drawback of CAD/CAM systems is that they are generally expensive given the small group of specialized practitioners they are aimed at. Although CAD/CAM technology is widely available, there has been little exposure of these systems to the foot practitioner in general. This has limited the use of this technology mostly to manufacturers who fabricate orthoses for their clinician clients for later dispensing to patients. This has also led to new problems arising by the fact that practitioners themselves do not have control over the actual design of the devices, as these are done by technicians at a remote manufacturing location [10]. This arrangement certainly does not take advantage of the flexibility of the design potential of these systems, since the practitioner could actually design the orthoses in the presence of the patient, ensuring that the resultant device would actually include the optimal features desired by the practitioner.

When compared with the traditional process of foot orthoses manufacturing, the CAD/CAM process offers obvious advantages, including increased accuracy, reproducibility of the printed/milled devices, increased quality, a less messy process, the reduction of possible inhaled dust as the orthoses are ground and, perhaps most importantly, an easier design and manufacturing process that can be performed by the clinician at the office, providing faster turnaround time benefiting the patient. The ability to design a device with the patient sitting next to the clinician also has obvious benefits which have not been explored sufficiently, as one can readily compare the device under process with the patient’s feet and condition, e.g the location of diabetic pressure ulcers that require precise offloading through the use of the insoles being designed.

The traditional foot orthoses manufacturing process compared to the CAD/CAM design and manufacturing process are compared in the algorithms depicted in Figures 1 and 2.


Figure 1 Traditional foot orthoses manufacturing process.


Figure 2 The CAD/CAM process.

Notwithstanding the fact that these specialized foot orthoses manufacturing systems provide such great advantages, they are still quite expensive to-date and beyond reach for the normal medical foot practitioner to consider as an integral part of their daily clinical service. With current improvement in CAD/CAM technologies in other fields, such as engineering, reverse engineering and rapid prototyping, which have drastically reduced prices to affordable levels, there is, in fact, no reason why generic CAD software cannot be applied to orthoses design; likewise the application of CAM to the milling of these devices.

When analysing the CAD process related to the design of any object, it becomes immediately apparent that any design software for orthoses should exhibit the same features as general CAD software, with the difference that icons could be named differently so that they would be more familiar to the medical practitioner whose would be changing to that of designer and manufacturer.

Hence the aim of this project was to describe the implementation of a CAD/CAM technique for the interested practitioner, who is normally a non-engineer, utilizing readily-available software and hardware. This should result in increased practitioner utilization of this technology and should encourage its implementation even by small practices and clinics who would prefer to perform the actual orthoses design themselves, providing a quicker turnaround time for their clients without incurring a huge financial burden towards purchasing a system which would ultimately reflect on the final cost to the patient.

The model discussed below describes the setup and implementation of an affordable CAD/CAM system, for use with either a 3D scanner, which captures the curvatures of the plantar aspect of the foot, or as a ‘customized prefab’ system. The choice of use would, naturally, depend on practitioner preferences.


The CAD aspect of the project

The Model

A 3D model of the orthoses may be created following various methods, including first scanning the patient’s foot with a 3D scanner or by using the design features of the chosen CAD software (Figure 3). For the purpose of this project, Rhinoceros 5.0 (McNeel & Associates; approximate cost €995 [$1,093] at the time of writing) was chosen, however the majority of CAD software should have the ability to either create or manipulate this model. Rhinoceros 5.0’s help file claims that this software provides the ability to “design anything from a ship to a mouse.” Thus the design of foot orthoses must surely lie within the capabilities of this software.


Figure 3 Screenshot of 3D CAD Model in Rhinoceros 5.0.

Obtaining of anthropometric measurements

Anthropometric measurements refer to the physical size of the orthosis itself, which should reflect the morphology of the foot. The actual length of the orthoses L (from the back of the heel, to the most distal (anterior) point of the orthoses, which is normally 1cm proximal to the metatarsophalangeal joints), together with the width of the anterior edge (Wf) and the width of the heel (Wh) can be obtained utilizing a Harris-Beath Mat or similar device. This simple apparatus, in which ink is applied to a ribbed latex sheet, under which a paper is placed, enables the practitioner to obtain an impression of the patient’s feet (Figure 4). Another similar device is a Podotrak™ footprint mat, which is another simple method of obtaining a footprint [10]. The third alternative is to use a normal 2D scanner to scan the foot, after first having marked the location of the 1st and 5th metatarsophalangeal joints. If printed full size, this latter method will print to actual size of the foot, thus enabling the direct measurement of the required regions of the foot.


Figure 4 Basic Anthropometry from pedograph.

Manipulation of Model

There are various ways in which the orthoses model may be manipulated, depending on the anthropometric measurements taken during clinical examinations, the required amount of posting (i.e. correction) and the additions according to the prescription for the device.

Altering the model to reflect the anthropometric measurements involves selecting the orthoses in the CAD software, then using the ‘transform tool’, stretching the design in an anterior/posterior direction until the dimensions equal those obtained from the physical measurement. The ‘measuring tool’ should ensure that the length of the orthosis is equal to that required by the designer, with millimetric precision. The same method can be applied to the width of the design.

Corrections to the model

Altering the model characteristics as required by the actual prescription might involve ‘posting’ (or ‘wedging’), or the addition of a heel raise if required. Thus medial posting may be utilized to limit pronation, while lateral posting would limit supination. Such corrections are quite simple to perform, utilizing the ‘rotate function’ which can be found in any CAD software, to rotate the orthosis the required number of degrees in the relative plane, thus creating a ‘post’ or ‘wedge’ (Figure 5).


Figure 5 Wedging or ‘posting’ of the right orthotic (exaggerated).

Insertion of additions

The addition of pads of various designs, such as plantar metatarsal pads or a plantar cover, to provide off-loading of specific areas of the plantar aspect of the foot may be required by the prescriber. A heel skive, on the other hand, provides additional correction underneath the medial aspect of the heel, in order to limit pronation of the hindfoot. A library of additions can be saved within the software, thus making these more accessible each time they are required.

The CAM aspect of the project

Once the model of the orthoses has been altered to fit the required design criteria, it can be exported in .stl format in order to be utilized by the Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) software. The majority of CAD software will have the capability of exporting the 3D model in .stl (stereolithography) format.

Vectric Cut3d (http://www.vectric.com/products/cut3d.html; approximate cost €240 [$264] at the time of writing) is a 3D machining software that can calculate the milling toolpath of an object designed by CAD for exporting to a text file.

The machining process involves knowing the size of the ‘blank’ out of which the orthotic device is to be milled out of. Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) is a common, widely utilized material that has been used in orthotic manufacture, including CAD/CAM, for a number of years. Pre-prepared blanks for CAD/CAM manufacture are available from distributors , as are blanks for polyurethane and polypropylene.

Milling software creates a ‘roughing toolpath’ and a ‘finishing toolpath’. The former is aimed at removing excessive material, cutting this down until only some excess material is left on, to be later removed by the ‘finishing toolpath’. Once this is created, the finished ‘G-code’ is generated. G-code is a series of instructions saved in a text file, that instruct where the milling head is to move in the x,y and z direction, whilst cutting the material.

The next part of the project is the milling process itself. This involves two components: the CNC (computer numeric control) milling machine itself and the computer software that reads the G-code created by the CAM software and translates it into machine movement, instructing the cutting head of the milling machine where to go in order to create a cutting path, the ‘toolpath’. There are various software that fulfil this function, including open-source software. Mach 3 (www.machsupport.com; approximate price €150 [$165] at the time of writing) is a popular software that is quite powerful and feature-rich, turning a personal computer into a CNC controller. Figure 6 is an example of a three quarters foot orthotic prior to covering.


Figure 6  An example of a milled foot orthotic prior to covering.

The CNC router is a 3-axis machine controlled by three separate stepper motors that provide very accurate positioning of the cutting head, which is often a spindle with a rotating bit. This bit cuts the material through the programmed tool path as it is moved from one position to another. There is a huge plethora of such machines, with prices ranging from a few hundred to thousands of dollars. The prospective buyer/user should do a research exercise in order to determine the best possible type of machine to buy, often depending on the available budget and production. However, one should not compromise after-sales support as more often than not, technical problems are liable to occur at one time or another.

Final customization

A fully-customized foot orthosis will exhibit one particular characteristic that standard off-the shelf devices do not: an upper surface that replicates the contours of the plantar aspect of the foot. Although for many applications, the level of customization described above would be sufficient in order to manage these particular foot conditions, full customization may be indicated in other categories of patients, such as in the high risk foot or when deformity is present. In this instance, a practitioner would often revert to casted orthoses.  There are two ways in which this can be achieved using the methodology described above; firstly to utilize a 3D scanner to obtain a 3D image of the plantar aspect of the foot, which then replaces the dorsal surface of the orthoses prior to milling. Secondly, by utilizing the thermoforming properties of EVA, allowing the orthoses to be molded directly onto the foot to obtain the contour characteristics of the plantar surface.


The above is the whole process required to set up the software and hardware for a CAD/CAM foot orthoses system. Each software and hardware device will require a steep learning curve for the new user, however the end result is certainly worth the outlay as small practices would acquire the availability and associated flexibility of supplying their patients with custom foot orthoses at a minimum outlay.

Implementation of the proposed system will require various skills which may not be inherently found in foot practitioners; however these should not be considerable hurdles to discourage the interested user.  If in difficulty, various experts in this specific field should be consulted. They would be in a position to further guide the practitioner in the implementation of their systems, e.g. software, hardware. Furthermore, the interested user is referred to the relevant literature and to the ample resources to be found on the internet.

This new method of devising CAD/CAM orthoses using the proposed protocol has been implemented and tested on over 300 patients, proving successfully results and patient satisfaction with the final product. Furthermore, one prospective experimental study investigating their effectiveness in treating chronic plantar heel pain in adults has been conducted and it has been concluded that these orthoses were effective in reducing this pain within a period of six weeks. A paper outlining this study is in the process of pre-publication.

The finished product produced by any CAD/CAM system is equivalent to the same product produced by hand-crafted methods, with the important difference that the time to manufacture is greatly reduced, with the added opportunity that the same device can later be re-manufactured with the exact same specifications.

Certainly the quoted technology is bound to be surpassed in the future, however, this is likely to remain a viable option for those wishing to implement 3D milling of foot orthoses. One such emergent technology is 3D printing, which is taking rapid-prototyping by storm. Indeed, even where foot orthoses are concerned, these are being researched by various institutions and are available for sale through some companies. Notwithstanding this, however, subtractive manufacturing utilizing materials such as ethylene vinyl acetate and polyurethane will still be sought by the practitioner since the materials used exhibit quite distinctly different properties to those employed by 3D printing technology. Thus an investment in this sector will certainly not be obsolete within a few years.


This paper presents the clinician wishing to embark on CAD/CAM manufacturing of foot orthoses with the methodology to achieve this target, thus initiating a possible future adjunct service to clients, allowing increased flexibility at a lower cost thus implying a greater access to patients.  It is quite evident that this is all possible at a relatively low-cost utilizing modern technology with the end result being comparable to those achieved by commercially available systems.  Thus this type of technology will become available to a wide range of health professionals, including pedorthists, physiotherapists, podiatrists, and orthotists.


  1. Ring K, Otter S. Clinical Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Bespoke and Prefabricated Foot Orthoses for Plantar Heel Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study. Musculoskeletal Care. 2013;12(1):1-10. doi:10.1002/msc.1053.
  2. Landorf KB, Keenan A-M, Herbert RD. Effectiveness of Different Types of Foot Orthoses for the Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association. 2004;94(6):542-549. doi:10.7547/0940542.
  3. Dombroski CE, Balsdon ME, Froats A. The use of a low cost 3D scanning and printing tool in the manufacture of custom-made foot orthoses: a preliminary study. BMC Research Notes BMC Res Notes. 2014;7(1):443. doi:10.1186/1756-0500-7-443.
  4. Ki SW, Leung AKL, Li ANM. Comparison of plantar pressure distribution patterns between foot orthoses provided by the CAD-CAM and foam impression methods. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2008;32(3):356-362. doi:10.1080/03093640802016159.
  5. Lee SY, Mckeon P, Hertel J. Does the use of orthoses improve self-reported pain and function measures in patients with plantar fasciitis? A meta-analysis. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2009;10(1):12-18. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2008.09.002.
  6. Walther M, Kratschmer B, Verschl J, et al. Effect of different orthotic concepts as first line treatment of plantar fasciitis. Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2013;19(2):103-107. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2012.12.008.
  7. Majumdar R, Laxton P, Thuesen A, et al. Development and evaluation of prefabricated antipronation foot orthosis. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 2013;50(10):1331-1342. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2013.02.0038.
  8. Goh JC, Ho NC, Bose K. Principles and applications of Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology in orthopaedics. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1990;19(5):706-13.
  9. Michael JW. Reflections on CAD/CAM in Prosthetics and Orthotics. JPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics. 1989;1(3):116-121. doi:10.1097/00008526-198904000-00005.
  10. VanSchie CHM, Abbott CA, Vileikyte L, Shaw JE, Hollis S, Boulton AJM. A comparative study of the Podotrack, a simple semiquantitative plantar pressure measuring device, and the optical pedobarograph in the assessment of pressures under the diabetic foot.Diabetic Medicine. 1999;16(2):154-159. doi:10.1046/j.1464-5491.1999.00018.x.

Effects of foot orthoses on kinetics and tibiocalcaneal kinematics in recreational runners

by Sinclair, J1 Isherwood J1 and Taylor PJ2pdflrg

The Foot and Ankle Online Journal 7 (3): 3

Epidemiological studies analysing the prevalence of running injuries suggest that chronic injuries are a prominent complaint. Foot orthoses have been advocated for the treatment of running injuries yet the mechanism behind their effects are not well understood. This study aimed to examine the kinetics and tibiocalcaneal kinematics of running as a function of orthotic intervention. Fourteen recreational runners ran at 4.0 m.s-1. The kinetics and tibiocalcaneal kinematics of running were obtained when running with and without orthotics and contrasted using paired t-tests. The results show that tibiocalcaneal kinematics were not significantly influenced by foot orthoses. However, it was demonstrated that kinetic parameters were significantly reduced as a function of the orthotic intervention. This study supports the notion that runners who are susceptible to chronic injuries related to excessive impact forces may benefit from foot orthoses and may provide insight into the clinical efficacy of orthotic intervention.

Key words: Foot orthoses, kinetics, tibiocalcaneal, runners

ISSN 1941-6806
doi: 10.3827/faoj.2014.0703.0003

Address correspondence to: Jonathan Sinclair, Division of Sport, Exercise and Nutritional Sciences, School of Sport Tourism and Outdoors
University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 2HE.
e-mail: Jksinclair@uclan.ac.uk

1 Division of Sport Exercise and Nutritional Sciences, University of Central Lancashire.
2 School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire.

Epidemiological studies analysing the prevalence of running injuries suggest that chronic injuries are a prominent complaint for both recreational and competitive runners [1]. Each year approximately 19.4-79.3% of runners will experience a pathology related to running [2].

Higher levels of impact loading have been shown by previous analyses to correlate significantly with the etiology of chronic injuries such as stress fractures, osteoarthritis, plantar fasciitis, medial tibial stress syndrome, and patellofemoral pain syndrome [3,4,5,6]. In addition, etiological analyses have shown that during running excessive coronal plane eversion of the ankle and internal rotation of the tibia are linked to the generation of chronic injuries [7,8].

This motion has been associated in clinical studies with a number of different pathologies such as tibial stress syndrome, plantar fasciitis, and anterior knee pain [9,10,11,12].

Orthoses are commonly utilized for the treatment of chronic injuries in runners [13,14]. Foot orthoses are utilized in an attempt to reduce impact forces and control coronal and transverse plane motion of the foot and tibia. The efficacy of foot orthoses has been demonstrated for both the prevention and treatment of chronic pathologies [15]. However, the mechanism by which foot orthoses exert their clinical benefits is not well understood.

The aim of the current investigation was to examine the influence of orthotic intervention on the kinetics and tibiocalcaneal kinematics of running. A study of this nature may provide information regarding the clinical effectiveness of foot orthoses and offer insight into the mechanism by which orthotic intervention serves to reduce symptoms of chronic running injuries.



Fourteen male runners (age 25.22 ± 3.87 years, height 1.79 ± 0.12 m, and body mass 73.64 ± 5.34 kg) took part in the current investigation. Participants were recreational runners who trained at least 3 times per week. All runners were deemed to exhibit a rearfoot strike pattern as they exhibited first peak in their vertical ground reaction force time-curve [16]. Ethical approval was obtained from the University Ethics Committee and the procedures outlined in the declaration of Helsinki were followed.

Orthotic device
Commercially available orthotics (Sorbothane, shock stopper sorbo Pro; Nottinghamshire UK) were examined in the current investigation. Although the right lower extremity was selected for analysis, orthotic devices were placed inside both shoes.


Participants completed five running trials at 4.0 m.s-1 ± 5%. The participants struck an embedded piezoelectric force platform (Kistler Instruments, Model 9281CA) sampling at 1000 Hz with their right foot [17]. Running velocity was monitored using infrared timing gates (SmartSpeed Ltd UK). The stance phase of the running cycle was delineated as the time over which > 20 N vertical force was applied to the force platform [18]. Kinematic information was collected using an eight-camera optoelectric motion capture system. Synchronised kinematic and ground reaction force data were obtained using Qualisys track manager software (Qualisys Medical AB, Goteburg, Sweden) with a capture frequency of 250 Hz.

The calibrated anatomical systems technique (CAST) was utilised to quantify tibiocalcaneal kinematics [19]. To define the anatomical frames of the right foot, and shank, retroreflective markers were positioned onto the calcaneus, first and fifth metatarsal heads, medial and lateral malleoli, medial and lateral epicondyle of the femur. A carbon fiber tracking cluster was attached to the shank segment. The foot was tracked using the calcaneus, and first and fifth metatarsal markers. Static calibration trials were obtained with the participant in the anatomical position in order for the positions of the anatomical markers to be referenced in relation to the tracking clusters/markers. Tibial accelerations were measured using an accelerometer (Biometrics ACL 300, Units 25-26 Nine Mile Point Ind. Est. Cwmfelinfach, Gwent United Kingdom) sampling at 1000 Hz. The device was attached to the tibia 0.08 m above the medial malleolus in alignment with its longitudinal axis [20]. Strong adhesive tape was placed over the device and the lower leg to prevent artifact in the acceleration signal.

Data processing

Retroreflective markers were digitized using Qualisys Track Manager in order to identify appropriate markers, and then exported as C3D files. Three-dimensional kinematics were quantified using Visual 3-D (C-Motion Inc, Germantown, MD, USA) after marker displacement data were smoothed using a low-pass Butterworth 4th order zero-lag filter at a cut off frequency of 12 Hz. Three-dimensional kinematics were calculated using an XYZ sequence of rotations. All kinematic waveforms were normalized to 100% of the stance phase, and then processed trials were averaged. Discrete three-dimensional kinematic measures from the ankle and tibia which were extracted for statistical analysis were 1) angle at footstrike, 2) angle at toe-off, 3) range of motion from footstrike to toe-off during stance, 4) peak eversion/tibial internal rotation, 5) relative range of motion (representing the angular displacement from footstrike to peak angle, 6) eversion/tibial internal rotation (EV/TIR) ratio.

Forces were reported in bodyweights (B.Ws) to allow normalization of the data among participants. From the force plate data, stance time, average loading rate, instantaneous loading rate, peak impact force, and time to peak impact were calculated. Average loading rate was calculated by dividing the impact peak magnitude by the time to the impact peak. Instantaneous loading rate was quantified as the maximum increase in vertical force between frequency intervals. The tibial acceleration signal was filtered using a 60 Hz low-pass Butterworth 4th order zero-lag filter to prevent any resonance effects on the acceleration signal. Peak tibial acceleration was defined as the highest positive acceleration peak measured during the stance phase. Average tibial acceleration slope was quantified by dividing peak tibial acceleration by the time taken from footstrike to peak tibial acceleration. The instantaneous tibial acceleration slope was quantified as the maximum increase in vertical force between frequency intervals


Table 1 Kinetic parameters (Mean and SD) obtained as a function of orthotic intervention (* = significant difference).

Fig 1

Figure 1 Tibiocalcaneal kinematics as a function of orthotic intervention (a= ankle sagittal, b= ankle coronal, c= ankle transverse, d= tibial internal rotation) (Black = no-orthotic and Grey = orthotic).

Statistical analyses

Differences in kinetics and tibiocalcaneal kinematics as a function of orthotic intervention were examined using paired samples t-tests. The alpha criterion for statistical significance was taken at the p<0.05 level [21]. Effect sizes were calculated using a Cohen’s D. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA).


Figure 1 and Tables 1-3 present the three-dimensional tibiocalcaneal kinematics and kinetics obtained as a function of orthotic intervention. The results indicate that kinetic parameters were significantly influenced by orthotic intervention.


Table 2 Ankle kinematic parameters (Mean and SD) obtained as a function of orthotic intervention (* = significant difference).


Table 3 Tibial internal rotation parameters (Mean and SD) obtained as a function of orthotic intervention (* = significant difference).


The results indicate that time to impact peak was significantly longer (t (13) = 3.03, p<0.05, D = 1.82) when using orthotics compared to without orthotics. The analysis also showed that both average (t (13) = 3.63, p<0.05, D = 2.19) and instantaneous loading rate (t (13) = 2.36, p<0.05, D = 1.43) were found to be significantly reduced as a function of orthotic intervention. In terms of tibial accelerations the results indicate that time to peak tibial acceleration was significantly longer (t (13) = 2.66, p<0.05, D = 1.60) when using orthotics compared to without orthotics. The analysis also showed that both average (t (13) = 2.79, p<0.05, D = 1.68) and instantaneous tibial acceleration slope (t (13) = 2.69, p<0.05, D = 1.62) were found to be significantly reduced as a function of orthotic intervention.

Tibiocalcaneal kinematics

No significant (p>0.05) differences in tibiocalcaneal kinematics were observed.


The aim of the current investigation was to examine the effects of orthotic intervention on the kinetics and three-dimensional tibiocalcaneal kinematics of running. This represents the first study to simultaneously investigate the kinetics and tibiocalcaneal kinematics in runners as a function of orthotic intervention.

The first key observation from the current investigation is that the temporal element of impact parameters measured using both the force platform accelerometer were significantly reduced as a function of the orthotic device. This finding concurs with those of Dixon [22] and Mundermann et al [23] who also noted reductions in the loading rate of the vertical ground reaction force as a result of orthotic intervention. This observation opposes those of Butler et al [24] and Maclean et al [25] however; who found that orthotics had no effect on impact forces during running. It is likely that this observation relates to the distinction in mechanical properties of the examined orthotics, which leads to the conclusion that orthotics cannot be considered analogous and that perhaps a systematic comparison of the many orthotic devices is warranted in biomechanical and podiatric settings.

The reduction in loading kinetics observed when orthotics were utilized may have potential clinical significance given the proposed relationship between impact loading magnitude and the aetiology of chronic running injuries [26]. It appears based on the findings from the current study that the utilization of foot orthoses has the potential to reduce the impact force parameters linked to the development of chronic injuries [26]. The mechanics behind this observation is likely to be the additional density provided by the orthotic which serves to provide an additional deceleration mechanism that increased the duration over which the impact phase occurs facilitating a reduction in loading kinetics.

A further key finding from this study is that orthotic intervention had no significant effect on tibiocalcaneal kinematics. This has particular clinical relevance in the coronal and transverse planes as excessive eversion and tibial internal rotation have been linked to the aetiology of a number of chronic pathologies in runners. This observation is somewhat surprising given that one of the primary functions of orthotic intervention is to attenuate rearfoot eversion, which opposes the observations of Bates et al [27] and Johanson et al [28], who each documented reductions in coronal and transverse plane motions when using an orthotic. This observation does concur with those of Stacoff et al [29], Nawoczenski et al [30], and Stackhouse et al [31] who also documented that orthotics did not influence rearfoot motion parameters. There are several potential mechanisms that may explain this finding. Firstly in light of the kinetics observations, the orthotic device may have been too soft to physically restrain the coronal plane motion of the ankle, meaning that despite the medial wedging the non-sagittal motion was not affected. Secondly, the medial materials in the orthotics used in the current may not have been substantial enough to elicit a change in rearfoot motion.

A potential limitation of the current investigation is that only runners who habitually utilize a rearfoot strike pattern were examined. Whilst this is a commonplace in biomechanical analyses of this nature given that the majority of runners are known to exhibit a heel-toe running style, it does mean that the effects of orthotics examined in this study cannot be generalized to non-rearfoot runners. However, it should be noted that Stackhouse et al [31] showed that foot orthoses do not differentially affect rearfoot motion in rearfoot and forefoot strike runners. Nonetheless given the wide range of commercially available orthotics that are currently available it is recommended that further consideration be given to the efficacy of orthotic intervention in runners who adopt a midfoot or forefoot strike pattern.

A further limitation is that only male runners were examined in the current investigation. Females have been shown to exhibit distinct tibiocalcaneal kinematics when compared to male recreational runners, with females being associated with significant increases in eversion and tibial internal rotation compared to males [32]. This suggests that the requirements of females in terms of orthotic intervention may differ from those of male runners. It may be prudent for the current investigation to be repeated using a female sample.

In conclusion, the current investigation provides new information describing the influence of orthotic foot inserts on the kinetics and tibiocalcaneal kinematics of running. On the basis that decreased impact loading was observed when running with orthotics, the current investigation may provide insight into the clinical efficacy of orthotic intervention. This study supports the notion that runners who are susceptible to chronic injuries related to excessive impact forces may benefit from foot orthoses.


  1. Hreljac A. Impact and overuse injuries in runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004 May;36 (5):845-49. – Pubmed citation
  2. van Gent RN, Siem D, van Middelkoop M, van Os AG, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Koes BW. Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. B J Sports Med 2007 Aug;41(8):469-80. – Pubmed citation
  3. Milner CE, Davis IS, Hamill J. Free moment as a predictor of tibial stress fracture in distance runners. J biomech 2006;39:2819-25. – Pubmed citation
  4. Collins JJ, Whittle MW. Impulsive forces during walking and their clinical implications. Clin Biomech 1989 Aug;4(3):179–87. – Pubmed citation
  5. Hamill J, Miller R, Noehren B, Davis I. A prospective study of iliotibial band strain in runners. Clin Biomech 2008 Oct;23(8):1018-25. – Pubmed citation
  6. Pohl MB, Mullineaux DR, Milner CE, Hamill J, Davis IS. Biomechanical predictors of retrospective tibial stress fractures in runners. J Biomech 2008;41(6):1160-5. – Pubmed citation
  7. Eslami M, Begon M, Farahpour N, Allard P. Forefoot-rearfoot coupling patterns and tibial internal rotation during stance phase of barefoot versus shod running. Clin Biomech 2007 Jan;22(1):74–80. – Pubmed citation
  8. DeLeo AT, Dierks TA, Ferber R, Davis IS. Lower extremity joint coupling during running: a current update. Clin Biomech 2004 Dec;19(10):983–91. – Pubmed citation
  9. Taunton JE, Clement DB, McNicol K. Plantar fasciitis in runners. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1982 Mar;7(1):41-4. – Pubmed citation
  10. Duffey MJ, Martin DF, Cannon DW, Craven T, Messier SP. Etiologic factors associated with anterior knee pain in distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000 Nov;32(11):1825-32. – Pubmed citation
  11. Willems TM, De Clercq D, Delbaere K, Vanderstraeten G, De Cock A, Witvrouw E. A prospective study to gait related risk factors for exercise-related lower leg pain. Gait Posture. 2006 Jan;23(1):91-8. – Pubmed citation
  12. Lee SY, Hertel J, Lee SC. Rearfoot eversion has indirect effects on plantar fascia tension by changing the amount of arch collapse. Foot 2010 Jun-Sep;20(2-3):64-70. – Pubmed citation
  13. Alfredson H, Cook J. A treatment algorithm for managing Achilles tendinopathy: new treatment options. Br J Sports Med 2007 Apr:41(4):211-6. – Pubmed citation
  14. Donoghue OA, Harrison AJ, Laxton P, Jones RK. Orthotic control of rear foot and lower limb motion during running in participants with chronic Achilles tendon injury. Sports Biomech 2008 May;7(2):194-205. – Pubmed citation
  15. Kilmartin TE, Wallace WA. The scientific basis for the use of biomechanical foot orthoses in the treatment of lower-limb sports injuries – a review of the literature. Br J Sports Med 1994 Sep;28(3):180-4. – Pubmed citation
  16. Cavanagh PR, Lafortune ML. Ground reaction forces in distance running. J Biomech. 1980;13(5):397–406. – Pubmed citation
  17. Sinclair J, Hobbs SJ, Taylor PJ, Currigan G, Greenhalgh A. The influence of different force and pressure measuring transducers on lower extremity kinematics measured during running. J Appl Biomech 2014 Feb;30(1):166-72. – Pubmed citation
  18. Sinclair J, Edmundson CJ, Brooks D, Hobbs SJ. Evaluation of Kinematic Methods of Identifying Gait Events during Running. Int J Sports Sci Eng 2011;5(3):188-92. – Link
  19. Cappozzo A, Catani F, Croce UD, Leardini A. Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin Biomech 1995 Jun;10(4):171–8. – Pubmed citation
  20. Greenhalgh A, Bottoms L, Sinclair J. Influence of surface on impact shock experienced during a fencing lunge. J Appl Biomech 2013 Aug;29(4):463-7. – Pubmed citation
  21. Sinclair JK, Taylor PJ, Hobbs SJ. Alpha Level Adjustments for Multiple Dependent Variable Analyses and Their Applicability – A Review. Int J Sports Sci Eng 2013 Mar;7(1):17-20. – Link
  22. Dixon SJ. Influence of a commercially available orthotic device on rearfoot eversion and vertical ground reaction force when running in military footwear. Mil Med 2007 Apr;172(4):446-50. – Pubmed citation
  23. Mundermann A, Nigg BM, Humble RN, Stefanyshyn DJ. Foot orthotics affect lower extremity kinematics and kinetics during running. Clin Biomech 2003 Mar;18(3):254-62. – Pubmed citation
  24. Butler RJ, Davis IM, Laughton CM, Hughes M. Dual-function foot orthosis: effect on shock and control of rearfoot motion. Foot Ankle Int 2003 May;24(5):410-4. – Pubmed citation
  25. MacLean C, Davis IM, Hamill J. Influence of a custom foot orthotic intervention on lower extremity dynamics in healthy runners. Clin Biomech 2006 Jul;21(6):623-30. – Pubmed citation
  26. Whittle MW. Generation and attenuation of transient forces beneath the foot: a review. Gait Posture 1999 Dec;10(3):264–75. – Pubmed citation
  27. Bates BT, Osternig LR, Mason B, James LS. Foot orthotic devices to modify selected aspects of lower extremity mechanics. Am J Sports Med 1979 Nov-Dec;7(6):338–42. – Pubmed citation
  28. Johanson MA, Donatelli R, Wooden MJ, Andrew PD, Cummings GS. Effects of three different posting methods on controlling abnormal subtalar pronation. Phys Ther 1994 Feb;74(2):149–58. – Pubmed citation
  29. Stacoff A, Reinschmidt C, Nigg BM, van den Bogert AJ, Lundburg A, Denoth J, Stussi E. Effects of foot orthosis on skeletal motion during running. Clin Biomech 2000 Jan;15(1):54–64. – Pubmed citation
  30. Nawoczenski DA, Cook TM, Saltzman CL. The effect of foot orthotics on three-dimensional kinematics of the leg and rearfoot during running. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1995 Jun;21(6):317–27. – Pubmed citation
  31. Stackhouse CL, Davis IM, Hamill J. Orthotic intervention in forefoot and rearfoot strike running patterns. Clin Biomech 2004 Jan;19(1):64-70. – Pubmed citation
  32. Sinclair J, Taylor PJ, Brooks D, Edmundson CJ, Hobbs SJ. Gender differences in tibiocalcaneal kinematics. J of Biomechanics 2012 Jul;45(1):S622. DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9290(12)70623-1