Customized Orthosis Design Based on Surface Reconstruction from 3D-Scanned Points

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on a scanned body part,the authors propose  a new 3D curve based-reconstruction algorithm to obtain a precise 3D surface of an orthotic device based . The topic is actual and interesting. The thread is clear. The paper is of sufficient originilaty due to  the proposed approach based on the B-Spline curve approximation to reconstruct a 3D surface. The reliability of the method is confirmed by the comparison with other methods in literature. The references are appropriate. 

In my opinion , the state of the art should be included in the introduction better highlighting the aim of the paper.

Besides, delete "of" in row 5 and put "developed" instead of "delepopped" in row 333.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revisions required.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer comments

 

Reviewer 1

 

 

[Comment 1]

In my opinion, the state of the art should be included in the introduction better highlighting the aim of the paper.

[Comment 2]

Besides, delete "of" in row 5 and put "developed" instead of "delepopped" in row 333.

Response:

 

We are so grateful for the reviewer’s interest and his considerate remarks.

 

[Comment 1]

• Many researches have been introduced in the introduction highlighting the aim of the paper. In the first side, traditional process of manufacturing customized orthoses is described. Second, the necessity of using new technologies such as 3D scanners is mentioned. Then, the aim of the paper is detailed. In fact, to improve the quality and the efficiency of a custom orthotic design, a robust surface-reconstruction algorithm taking as input data acquired from 3D scan of a body patient part is developed to overcome the limits of traditional methods.

Modifications have been fixed in the introduction to mention the aim of the paper.

 

[Comment 2]

• The required corrections have been incorporated in the paper.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim is to presents a review of related works and the proposed methodology for surface reconstruction .

 

The article is not academic scientific writing.

 

Title: very unclear. Edit it.

Line 55: What is Section 2 ?

Line 55: How did you review related works ?.

Line 60: State of the art? Edit it to Literature review.

In discussion, write your limitation

 

Conclusion is too long. Summarize it simply.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Title: very unclear. Edit it.

What is Section 2?

Line 55: How did you review related works?.

Line 60: State of the art? Edit it to Literature review.

In discussion, write your limitation.

Conclusion is too long. Summarize it simply.

Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his pertinent remarks.

[Comment 1] Title: very unclear. Edit it.

• We are grateful to the reviewer for inviting us to edit the title. The new title is: Customized Orthosis Design based on Surface Reconstruction from 3D scanned points

[Comment 2] What is Section 2 ?

• The second section of the paper presents the literature review.

[Comment 3] Line 55: How did you review related works?.

• We have reviewed the related works by studying existing methods that aim to reconstruct 3D models that design orthotic devices.

[Comment 4] Line 60: State of the art? Edit it to Literature review.

• “State of the art” section is edited to “Literature review”.

[Comment 5] In discussion, write your limitation.

• The limitation is added in the discussion.

[Comment 6] Conclusion is too long. Summarize it simply.

• We have summarized the conclusion.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed B spline interpolation method achieved accurate measurement. However, it is difficult to catch the technical importance of the achievement. In order to enhance the value of this article, please consider the following review comments.

#1. The expression of reconstruction MRMS error is very strange, which should be  described in scientific standard style with the real part and exponential order. Also, the exponential order had better be unified to easy comparison of the MRMS errors in different 3D reconstruction methods.

#2. It is difficult to understand the degree and the influence of the 3D reconstruction error because the accuracy (error) described as limitation in Table 1 is abstract, not practical. The author should clearly describe the present issues due to the measurement error in the  reported surface reconstruction methods, e.g. intolerable surface roughness, uncomfortable feeling due to surface waviness, skin inflammation due to scratch. Otherwise, the proposed method achieved an excessive quality of the measurement.

#3. Considering the above, it is recommended to organize a discussion part in order to describe the technical advantage and clinical significance of the proposed B spline interpolation method. Furthermore, functional aspects are requested in discussion. It is considered that a good orthotic fitting can be obtained by the adaptive support with the elastic deformity of the soft tissue, not only the accurately reconstructed shape of the limb.

#4. Spell checking is required, because there are some misspellings in the main text.         Line   46: Nerveless      nevertheless?                                                                             Line 333: developped   developed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Spell checking is required, because there are some misspellings in the main text.         Line   46: Nerveless      nevertheless?                                                                             Line 333: developped   developed.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

The proposed B spline interpolation method achieved accurate measurement. However, it is difficult to catch the technical importance of the achievement. In order to enhance the value of this article, please consider the following review comments.

[Comment 1] The expression of reconstruction MRMS error is very strange, which should be  described in scientific standard style with the real part and exponential order. Also, the exponential order had better be unified to easy comparison of the MRMS errors in different 3D reconstruction methods.

[Comment 2] It is difficult to understand the degree and the influence of the 3D reconstruction error because the accuracy (error) described as limitation in Table 1 is abstract, not practical. The author should clearly describe the present issues due to the measurement error in the  reported surface reconstruction methods, e.g. intolerable surface roughness, uncomfortable feeling due to surface waviness, skin inflammation due to scratch. Otherwise, the proposed method achieved an excessive quality of the measurement.

[Comment 3] Considering the above, it is recommended to organize a discussion part in order to describe the technical advantage and clinical significance of the proposed B spline interpolation method. Furthermore, functional aspects are requested in discussion. It is considered that a good orthotic fitting can be obtained by the adaptive support with the elastic deformity of the soft tissue, not only the accurately reconstructed shape of the limb.

[Comment 4] Spell checking is required, because there are some misspellings in the main text.         

Line   46: Nerveless      nevertheless?                                                                           

 Line 333: developped   developed.

Response

 

We are so grateful for the reviewer’s interest and his considerate remarks

[Comment 1] The expression of reconstruction MRMS error is very strange, which should be  described in scientific standard style with the real part and exponential order. Also, the exponential order had better be unified to easy comparison of the MRMS errors in different 3D reconstruction methods.

• The expression of the MRMS error has been revised and corrected in the manuscript.
• The exponential order had been unified and this point has been fixed in the revised manuscript.

[Comment 2] It is difficult to understand the degree and the influence of the 3D reconstruction error because the accuracy (error) described as limitation in Table 1 is abstract, not practical. The author should clearly describe the present issues due to the measurement error in the  reported surface reconstruction methods, e.g. intolerable surface roughness, uncomfortable feeling due to surface waviness, skin inflammation due to scratch. Otherwise, the proposed method achieved an excessive quality of the measurement.

[Comment 3] Considering the above, it is recommended to organize a discussion part in order to describe the technical advantage and clinical significance of the proposed B spline interpolation method. Furthermore, functional aspects are requested in discussion. It is considered that a good orthotic fitting can be obtained by the adaptive support with the elastic deformity of the soft tissue, not only the accurately reconstructed shape of the limb.

• A discussion part is added in the manuscript in order to describe the technical advantage and clinical significance of the proposed B-spline interpolation method.
• The functional aspects are added in the discussion. In fact, it is true that the precise reconstruction of the 3D surface affect the quality of the orthotic model, but the adaptive support with the elastic deformity of the soft tissue can also affect the quality of the final product.

 

[Comment 4] Spell checking is required, because there are some misspellings in the main text.         

Line   46: Nerveless      nevertheless?                                                                           

 Line 333: developped   developed.

We have fixed these corrections in red color in the revised manuscript.  

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments