Three-dimensional scanning and printing techniques to analyze and archive human skeletal remains
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-10-2017-0206 |
| Published date | 16 September 2019 |
| Date | 16 September 2019 |
| Pages | 389-400 |
| Author | Kristy Henson,Paul Constantino,F. Robin O’Keefe,Greg Popovich |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,Library technology,Information behaviour & retrieval,Information user studies,Metadata,Information & knowledge management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
Three-dimensional scanning and
printing techniques to analyze
and archive human
skeletal remains
Kristy Henson
Department of Forensic Science, Fairmont State University, Fairmont,
West Virginia, USA
Paul Constantino
Department of Biology, Saint Michael’s College, Colchester, Vermont, USA
F. Robin O’Keefe
Department of Biological Science, Marshall University, Huntington,
West Virginia, USA, and
Greg Popovich
School of Exercise Science and Athletic Training,
West Virginia Wesleyan College, Buckhannon, West Virginia, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The topic ofhuman skeletal analysis is a sensitivesubject in North America.Laws and regulations
surrounding research of human skeletal material make it difficult to usethese 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 o5 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 thatlarger bones recorded by the Artec Evahave o5 percent error of the original
specimenwhile smaller more detailed imageshave W5 percent error. The CTimages are closer to o5 percent
accuracy, withfew bones still W5 percent error. The Artec Eva scanner is inexpensive in comparison to a CT
machine, but takestwice as long to process the Eva’s data. The Artec Evais sufficient in replication of larger
elements, butthe CT machine is still a preferable meansof 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.
Keywords Archaeology, 3D printing, 3D scanning, Digitizing, Osteology, Skeletal remains
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The topic of human skeletal analysis is a sensitive subject in North America. Laws and
regulations surrounding excavation and research of human skeletal material make it
difficult to use these remains to characterize native populations. Recent technology has
Library Hi Tech
Vol. 37 No. 3, 2019
pp. 389-400
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0737-8831
DOI 10.1108/LHT-10-2017-0206
Received 16 October 2017
Revised 18 July 2018
10 August 2018
Accepted 7 September 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm
The authors would like to acknowledge Cabell Huntington Hospital and John Napier for use of their
Medical CT scanner. The authors would also like to thank Dr Darren Gemoets, Dr Suzanne Strait,
Dr Nicholas Freidin and Joseph Hamden for their professional assistance during this project.
389
3D scanning
and printing
techniques
To continue reading
Request your trial