Available via license: CC BY-NC
Content may be subject to copyright.
Development of CAD/CAM based brace models
Asian Spine JournalAsian Spine Journal
661
Copyright Ⓒ 2015 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/)
which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Asian Spine Journal • pISSN 1976-1902 eISSN 1976-7846 • www.asianspinejournal.org
Received Jan 29, 2015; Revised Mar 25, 2015; Accepted Mar 25, 2015
Corresponding author: Hans-Rudolf Weiss
Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Services, Gesundheitsforum Nahetal, Alzeyer Str. 23, Gensingen D-55457, Germany
Tel: +49-6727-894040, Fax:+49-6727-8940429, E-mail: hr.weiss@skoliose-dr-weiss.com
Development of CAD/CAM Based Brace
Models for the Treatment of Patients with
Scoliosis-Classication Based Approach versus
Finite Element Modelling
Hans-Rudolf Weiss1, Alexander Kleban2
1Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Services, Gesundheitsforum Nahetal, Gensingen, Germany
2Department of Mathematics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Study Design: Retrospective controlled cohort study comparing the in-brace correction of two samples of scoliosis patients with
braces of different computer aided design (CAD).
Purpose: In-brace correction and compliance correlate with outcome. The more standardized CAD braces that are available should
enable improved in-brace correction and outcome. This study compared recent CAD brace developments with respect to in-brace cor-
rections.
Overview of Literature: A 2013 randomized controlled trial demonstrated that 72% of a population complying to Scoliosis Research
Society inclusion criteria on bracing did not progress using braces (mainly Boston braces) used in the United States and Canada with
moderate corrective effect.
Methods: In-brace corrections achieved in a sample of patients fullling the inclusion criteria for studies on bracing using the clas-
sication based approach (CBA) were compared to the recent individual CAD/computer aided manufacturing bracing based on nite
element modelling approach (FEMA).
Results: In-brace corrections using the different approaches differed widely. CBA in-brace corrections were 66% of the initial value.
FEMA in-brace correction was 42% of the initial value.
Conclusions: Considering the fact that in-brace correction (and compliance) determines the end result of bracing in the treatment of
scoliosis, scoliosis braces based on CBA are superior to the FEMA and the standard plaster based brace applications.
Keywords: Scoliosis; Brace; Orthothis; Correction; Computer aided design
Basic Study Asian Spine J 2015;9(5):661-667 • hp://dx.doi.org/10.4184/asj.2015.9.5.661
ASJASJ
Asian Spine JournalAsian Spine Journal
Introduction
Scoliosis is a lateral deviation of the spine commonly
exhibiting different patterns of curvature [1]. The basic
curve patterns are named aer the location of the major
curve (e.g., thoracic, lumbar, thoracolumbar, double ma-
jor, and double thoracic), but other specic classications
have been described [2]. In structural scoliosis, there is
usually a certain amount of spinal torsion and a distur-
bance of the sagittal prole coupled to the lateral defor-
Hans-Rudolf Weiss et al.662 Asian Spine J 2015;9(5):661-667
mation [1]. erefore, scoliosis must be more accurately
regarded as a three-dimensional (3D) deformity of the
spine and trunk, which may progress quickly during peri-
ods of rapid growth [1].
ere is some evidence for the use of physiotherapy in
the treatment of patients with spinal deformities. Howev-
er, during the pubertal growth spurt (high-risk phase for
progression), brace treatment is the most important mode
of treatment [1]. In-brace correction and compliance cor-
relate with outcome [1,3]. More asymmetric braces with
increased corrective eect are preferable (Cheneau style)
to the more symmetric Boston braces [1,3].
Historically, the Boston brace treatment has produced
brace corrections exceeding 30% of the initial angle of
curvature. For Cheneau braces, as early as 1985 brace cor-
rections exceeding an average of 40% have yielded bene-
cial end-results. Recent in-brace corrections with rened
Cheneau derivates have reportedly exceeded 50% of the
initial value. While the Cheneau brace has historically
been constructed only by modifying the plaster positive
of the individual patient (Fig. 1), the Boston brace was
constructed by modication of a plaster cast individually
or by adjustment of a formerly provided prefabricated
Boston module.
e Boston brace is now regarded as the baseline stan-
dard for new individual computer aided design/computer
aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) braces [4-9]. Finite
element modelling results have suggested that individual
braces can be constructed using CAD to correct individual
curvature patterns when low-dose stereo X-rays are avail-
able for calculation. is approach seems very promising,
as it addresses very precisely curve patterns individually
and not by classification. However, in-brace corrections
still do not reach the percentage correction attained with
Cheneau applications [6,9].
Cheneau applications can also be constructed by CAD/
CAM [1,2]. These applications are not based on finite
element modelling, but instead on specic classications
of curve patterns developed empirically (Fig. 2) [2]. e
original Cheneau brace was derived from the Abbott
model of correction [10]. Voids are implemented opposite
to the pressure zones in all 3D to allow the 3D corrective
movement without compression of the patient. This has
lead to semi-standardized, custom-made braces for func-
tional 3- and 4-curve patterns [10]. is simple Cheneau
classication is based on the version implemented about
a half-century ago [10]. is simple classication remains
relevant for present-day physiotherapy treatment of sco-
liosis. However, more specic bracing classications have
been established.
The most recent classification for bracing scoliosis,
the augmented Lehnert-Schroth classification (Fig. 2),
derived from the original Lehnert-Schroth classication.
The present publication provides a description of the
empirically based CAD/CAM brace model (classication
based approach, CBA), which incorporates the collective
information obtained over nearly 4 decades preceeding
the actual CAD/CAM Cheneau derivates [2].
An ongoing prospective controlled trial is comparing
this approach to other samples described in literature us-
ing the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) inclusion criteria
for studies on bracing. A recent publication described in-
Fig. 1. Plaster based brace construction according to the Cheneau principles.
Development of CAD/CAM based brace models
Asian Spine JournalAsian Spine Journal
663
brace corrections achieved using the nite element mod-
elling approach (FEMA) [11]. So, the in-brace corrections
achieved in the sub-sample of patients fulfilling SRS in-
clusion criteria for studies on bracing using the CBA [2]
can be compared to the individual CAD/CAM bracing
approach based on FEMA.
Materials and Methods
Within the CBA, seven basic patterns of curvature (Figs.
2–4) were established as a subclassification to the origi-
nal Lehnert-Schroth classication (3- and 4-curve). Two
additional patterns were introduced to address double
thoracic curvatures and a thoracolumbar pattern with a
structural high thoracic counter curve. In 2011, we com-
menced a prospective controlled study on CBA outcome
using the SRS inclusion criteria involving all patients
available at that time, with the aim of testing the in-brace
correction achieved. Twenty-one patients fulfilled the
SRS inclusion criteria on bracing. e average Cobb cur-
vature angle and in-brace Cobb angle was 31° and 11°,
respectively. Concerning FEMA [11], until recently there
were no consistent results regarding the published in-
brace correction [9]. The in-brace corrections achieved
using FEMA could derived from a sample of 15 patients
reported on recently [11]. We statistically compared the
average in-brace corrections as achieved with the two dif-
ferent approaches. e Student t-test was used to compare
the in-brace corrections of the two dierent samples.
Fig. 2. The Augmented Lehnert-Schroth classication used for the selection of the appropriate brace from Gensingen library. 3CH, 3-curve
with hip prominence; 3CTL, 3-curve with hip prominence thoracolumbar; 3C, 3-curve balanced; 3CL, 3-curve with long lumbar counter-
curve; 4C, 4-curve double; 4CL, 4-curve single lumbar; 4CTL, 4-curve single thoracolumbar. Reprinted from Weiss et al. [2], according to the
Creative Commons License of OA Publishing London.
Fig. 3. The seven basic models of the Gensingen library. Model (A)
3BH, (B) 3BTL, (C) 3BN, (D) 3BL, (E) 4B, (F) 4BL, (G) 4BTL. 3B, func-
tional 3 curve pattern; 4B, functional 4 curve pattern. Reprinted from
Weiss [12], according to the Creative Commons License of OA Publish-
ing London.
A B C D
E F G
Hans-Rudolf Weiss et al.664 Asian Spine J 2015;9(5):661-667
Results
CBA analyses involved 21 females who matched the SRS
inclusion criteria for studies on bracing. eir average age
was 12.2 years (standard deviation [SD], 1.1 years). The
distribution of curve patterns was thoracic (n=11), double
major (n=4), lumbar (n=4), and thoracolumbar (n=2).
e average Risser stage was 0.38 (SD, 0.68) and the av-
erage Cobb angle was 31.33° (SD, 6.58°). Concerning
FEMA, the average Cobb angle prior to bracing for the
15 patients was 31° for the main thoracic (MT) curve and
32° for the thoracolumbar/lumbar (TL/L) curve. e New
Brace (FEMA) reduced Cobb angles by 42% (39% for the
MT curve and 49% for the TL/L curve), which were pre-
dicted with a dierence inferior to 5° by the simulation.
e standard brace (Boston type) reduced these angles by
43% [11]. In-brace corrections diered widely when the
dierent approaches were compared. In-brace corrections
in the CBA was 66% of the initial value and in-brace cor-
rection in the FEMA was 42% of the initial value when
not wearing the brace. Statistical comparison of the extent
of in-brace corrections of CBA (sample derived from [2])
with FEMA (sample derived from [11]) revealed no sig-
nicant dierences (t=–1.46, p=0.05, z=1.96).
Discussion
e CBA with respect to in-brace correction seems supe-
rior to the FEMA (Figs. 5, 6). As in-brace correction and
compliance determine the outcome of brace treatment [3],
the CBA seems promising. e CBA was derived from the
latest renment of the Cheneau bracing, which reportedly
has the best in-brace correction exceeding 50% of the ini-
tial value of 66% [2].
The differences of in-brace corrections between CBA
and FEMA did not reach the level of signicance. Howev-
er, this may have reected the limited number of patients.
e two samples were comparable in Cobb angle (31° in
both).
CBA is readily available and can be used by submitting
the patients’ data, anthropometric measurements and pic-
tures (including the X-ray); or by submitting a scan le of
the patient together with the patients’ data and pictures
(including the X-ray). No stereo X-rays are necessary
for CBA. Like FEMA, CBA can be improved by time to
achieve a better in-brace correction.
Brace treatment can eectively halt progression. A re-
cent randomized controlled trial [13] demontrated that
72% of the United States and Canadian population com-
pliant with SRS inclusion criteria on bracing [14] did not
progress using the standard thoracolumbosacral orthosis
(TLSO, mainly Boston type). As FEMA does not seem
to provide better in-brace corrections than the standard
TLSO bracing in the United States [11], we would not be
able to predict an improved outcome when comparing
FEMA to the standard TLSO brace.
Fig. 4. Different models from the Gensingen brace computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) library.
Development of CAD/CAM based brace models
Asian Spine JournalAsian Spine Journal
665
Fig. 6. Clinical result of a 15-year-old patient with a 42-degree Cobb angle at the start of treatment with marked progres-
sion within a few weeks. Right: clinical result following 6 months of treatment after outgrowing her rst brace. Pelvic
width has increased as compared to the photo at far left revealing skeletal immaturity at the start, age 15, although nor-
mally 15-year-old girls are nearly fully grown (to 99%). Reprinted from Weiss et al. [2], according to the Creative Commons
License of OA Publishing London.
Fig. 5. Brace from a patient with a full correction of the single thoracic curve pattern. This patient, from New Zealand, was
12 years old with Tanner II–III and so was still rather exible. Reprinted from Weiss et al. [2], according to the Creative Com-
mons License of OA Publishing London.
Hans-Rudolf Weiss et al.666 Asian Spine J 2015;9(5):661-667
A retrospective series using CBA in a sample fulfill-
ing the SRS inclusion criteria of the studies on bracing
revealed a success rate exceeding 95% [14,15]. This was
confirmed in another study using the correction princi-
ples according to Cheneau [16]. Recently, it was reported
that 33% of a population demonstrating improvements
of Cobb angle exceeding 5 degrees aer weaning o the
CBA braces, with none of the subjects requiring surgery
[17].
Considering that in-brace correction (and compliance)
determine the end result of bracing in the treatment of
scoliosis [3], we acknowledge that CBA is superior to
FEMA and to the standard brace applications used in
the United States and Canada [13]. For the best possible
results in terms of avoiding surgery at this stage, CBA
should be preferred [15].
FEMA is closely attached to the exterior surface of the
patient. How often such a brace has to be renewed dur-
ing growth is relevant an unanswered question. is also
applies to braces manufactured using 3D printing [18].
Even a marginal gains in pelvic size will make a new brace
necessary, because the FEMA and the actual 3D printed
models fully wrap the body in the brace, leaving no room
for growth (Fig. 7A).
The actual models of the CBA [12]–the Gensingen
brace series–have the advantage of covering only one pel-
vic half, which preserves room for the corrective move-
ment and an overlap of the ventral closure. erefore, we
can predict longer usage of the latter brace before out-
growth (Figs. 4, 7).
Conclusions
Considering that in-brace correction (and compliance)
determine the end result of bracing in the treatment of
scoliosis [3], currently the CBA approach of bracing sco-
liosis is superior to FEMA and the standard brace applica-
tions as used in the United States and Canada.
e actual models of the CBA–the Gensingen brace se-
ries–have the advantage of covering one pelvic half, which
preserves room for the corrective movement and overlap
of the ventral closure. erefore, longer usage of the latter
brace before outgrowth is likely.
Conict of Interest
Hans-Rudolf Weiss is receiving financial support for
attending symposia and receives royalties from Koob
Fig. 7. (A) Finite element modelling approach brace with little asymmetry (reprinted from Clin et al. [11]). (B, C) The classica-
tion based approach braces according to the Gensingen brace computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)
library with clear asymmetry and good in-brace correction.
A B C
Development of CAD/CAM based brace models
Asian Spine JournalAsian Spine Journal
667
GmbH & Co KG.
Acknowledgments
All authors contributed to conception and design, manu-
script preparation, read and approved the final manu-
script. e authors are thankful to Dr. SY Ng, Hong Kong
for his helpful advice and for helping with copyediting of
this paper.
References
1. Weiss HR, Moramarco M. Scoliosis-treatment indi-
cations according to current evidence. OA Musculo-
skelet Med 2013;1:1.
2. Weiss HR, Seibel S, Moramarco M, Kleban A. Bracing
scoliosis: the evolution to CAD/CAM for improved
in-brace corrections. Hard Tissue 2013;2:43.
3. Landauer F, Wimmer C, Behensky H. Estimating the
nal outcome of brace treatment for idiopathic tho-
racic scoliosis at 6-month follow-up. Pediatr Rehabil
2003;6:201-7.
4. Clin J, Aubin CE, Labelle H. Virtual prototyping of a
brace design for the correction of scoliotic deformi-
ties. Med Biol Eng Comput 2007;45:467-73.
5. Labelle H, Belleeur C, Joncas J, Aubin CE, Cheriet
F. Preliminary evaluation of a computer-assisted tool
for the design and adjustment of braces in idiopathic
scoliosis: a prospective and randomized study. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:835-43.
6. Clin J, Aubin CE, Parent S, Sangole A, Labelle H.
Comparison of the biomechanical 3D efficiency of
dierent brace designs for the treatment of scoliosis
using a finite element model. Eur Spine J 2010;19:
1169-78.
7. Clin J, Aubin CE, Parent S, Labelle H. Biomechanical
modeling of brace treatment of scoliosis: effects of
gravitational loads. Med Biol Eng Comput 2011;49:
743-53.
8. Clin J, Aubin CE, Sangole A, Labelle H, Parent S.
Correlation between immediate in-brace correction
and biomechanical eectiveness of brace treatment in
adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
2010;35:1706-13.
9. Desbiens-Blais F, Clin J, Parent S, Labelle H, Aubin
CE. New brace design combining CAD/CAM and
biomechanical simulation for the treatment of ado-
lescent idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Biomech (Bristol,
Avon) 2012;27:999-1005.
10. Weiss HR, Rigo M, Cheneau J. Praxis der Cheneau-
Korsettversorgung in der skoliosetherapie.1st ed.
Stuttgart: ieme; 2000.
11. Clin J, Cobetto N, Desbiens-Blais F, et al. Advanced
brace design combining CAD/CAM and biomechan-
ical simulation for the treatment of adolescent idio-
pathic scoliosis. Proceeding of the OTWorld 2014;
2014 May 13; Leipzig, Germany.
12. Weiss HR. Standardising the treatment with Cheneau
braces via CAD: pospects and risks. OA Musculosk-
elet Med 2014;2:10.
13. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Wright JG, Dobbs MB. Ef-
fects of bracing in adolescents with idiopathic scolio-
sis. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1512-21.
14. Richards BS, Bernstein RM, D'Amato CR, Thomp-
son GH. Standardization of criteria for adolescent
idiopathic scoliosis brace studies: SRS Committee on
Bracing and Nonoperative Management. Spine (Phila
Pa 1976) 2005;30:2068-75.
15. Weiss HR, Werkmann M. Rate of surgery in a sample
of patients fullling the SRS inclusion criteria treated
with a Cheneau brace of actual standard. Stud Health
Technol Inform 2012;176:407-10.
16. De Giorgi S, Piazzolla A, Tafuri S, Borracci C, Mar-
tucci A, De Giorgi G. Cheneau brace for adolescent
idiopathic scoliosis: long-term results. Can it prevent
surgery? Eur Spine J 2013;22 Suppl 6:S815-22.
17. Weiss HR, Seibel S, Kleban A. Deformity-related
stress in a sample of patients with adolescent idio-
pathic scoliosis aer brace weaning: a cross-sectional
investigation. OA Musculoskelet Med 2014;2:5.
18. Chavez E. A perfect t: 3D systems unveils Bespoke 3D
printed braces for chronic scoliosis [Internet]. New
York: 3D Printing Industry; 2014 Jun 12 [cited 2015
May 29]. Available from: http://3dprintingindustry.
com/2014/06/12/perfect-fit-3d-systems-unveils-
bespoke-3d-printed-braces-chronic-scoliosis/.