Three-dimensional scanning and printing techniques to analyze and archive human skeletal remains

Purpose The topic of human skeletal analysis is a sensitive subject in North America. Laws and regulations surrounding research of human skeletal material make it difficult to use these remains to characterize various populations. Recent technology has the potential to solve this dilemma. Three-dimensional (3D) scanning creates virtual models of this material, and stores the information, allowing future studies on the material. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach To assess the potential of this methodology, the authors compared processing time, accuracy and costs of computer tomography (CT) scanner to the Artec Eva portable 3D surface scanner. Using both methodologies the authors scanned and 3D printed one adult individual. The authors hypothesize that the Artec Eva will create digital replicas of <5 percent error based on Buikstra and Ubelaker standard osteometric measurements. Error was tested by comparing the measurements of the skeletal material to the Artec data, CT data and 3D printed data. Findings Results show that larger bones recorded by the Artec Eva have 5 percent error. The CT images are closer to 5 percent error. The Artec Eva scanner is inexpensive in comparison to a CT machine, but takes twice as long to process the Eva’s data. The Artec Eva is sufficient in replication of larger elements, but the CT machine is still a preferable means of skeletal replication, particularly for small elements. Originality/value This research paper is unique because it compares two common forms of digitization, which has not been done. The authors believe this paper would be of value to natural history curators and various researchers.

[1]  Melvin J. Wachowiak,et al.  3d Scanning and Replication for Museum and Cultural Heritage Applications , 2009 .

[2]  Imran A. Rahman,et al.  Virtual Fossils: a New Resource for Science Communication in Paleontology , 2012, Evolution: Education and Outreach.

[3]  M Kouchi,et al.  Interobserver errors in anthropometry. , 1999, Journal of human ergology.

[4]  Marc Rioux,et al.  Active Optical 3D Imaging for Heritage Applications , 2002, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[5]  R. Patnaik,et al.  ESR response in tooth enamel to high-resolution CT scanning , 2012, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences.

[6]  Susan C. Kuzminsky,et al.  Three-dimensional laser scanning: potential uses for museum conservation and scientific research , 2012 .

[7]  Susan C. Kuzminsky,et al.  The application of 3D geometric morphometrics and laser surface scanning to investigate the standardization of cranial vault modification in the Andes , 2016 .

[8]  Tim Gernat,et al.  Virtual skeletons: using a structured light scanner to create a 3D faunal comparative collection , 2009 .

[9]  S. Alberti,et al.  Should we display the dead , 2009 .

[10]  Peter Axelsson,et al.  Processing of laser scanner data-algorithms and applications , 1999 .

[11]  Justin W. Adams,et al.  The production of anatomical teaching resources using three‐dimensional (3D) printing technology , 2014, Anatomical sciences education.

[12]  S. Hughes CT Scanning in Archaeology , 2011 .

[13]  Maureen van Eijnatten,et al.  The impact of manual threshold selection in medical additive manufacturing , 2016, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[14]  Justin W. Adams,et al.  Use of 3D printed models in medical education: A randomized control trial comparing 3D prints versus cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy , 2016, Anatomical sciences education.

[15]  D. Ubelaker,et al.  Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains , 1994 .

[16]  R. Sawatzky,et al.  Use of Hand-held Laser Scanning and 3D Printing for Creation of a Museum Exhibit. , 2005 .