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

• Published in: Library hi tech Vol. 37; no. 3; pp. 389 - 400
• Main Authors: Henson, Kristy, Constantino, Paul, O’Keefe, F. Robin, Popovich, Greg
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bradford Emerald Publishing Limited 16.09.2019; Emerald Group Publishing Limited
• Subjects: 3-D printers; Accuracy; Archives & records; Biomedical materials; Bones; Computed tomography; Data collection; Digitization; Error analysis; Human remains; Magnetic resonance imaging; Medical imaging; Museums; NMR; Nuclear magnetic resonance; Repatriation; Replication; Researchers; Scanners; Scanning; Scientific papers; Software; Three dimensional models; Three dimensional printing; United States > US; Archaeology; Digitizing; Skeletal remains; 3D printing; 3D scanning; Osteology
• ISSN: 0737-8831; 2054-166X
• DOI: 10.1108/LHT-10-2017-0206

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 of the original specimen while smaller more detailed images have >5 percent error. The CT images are closer to <5 percent accuracy, with few bones still >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.