Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288

Available online at

ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com

Review

Survey and literature study to provide insights on the application of

3D technologies in objects conservation and restoration
Lien Acke a,∗ , Kristel De Vis a , Stijn Verwulgen b , Jouke Verlinden b
a
ARCHES research group, Faculty of Design Sciences, University of Antwerp, Mutsaardstraat 31, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium
b
Product Development, Faculty of Design Sciences, University of Antwerp, Mutsaardstraat 31, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium

i n f o a r t i c l e A b s t r a c t

Historique de l’article : 3D technologies, including data acquisition, digital modelling and manufacturing, have been used in
Reçu le 8 septembre 2020 the context of cultural heritage (CH) since the 1990 s. A general state of the art is given concerning the
Accepté le 7 décembre 2020 adoption of 3D models in CH and for virtual reconstruction of missing parts in conservation-restoration
Disponible sur Internet le 31 March 2021
work. Although an increased use of 3D technologies is noticed in research, preservation, dissemination
and conservation-restoration, the opinion, experience and concerns of the restorer on the application of
Keywords : 3D technologies in their work is unclear. The conservation community was therefore asked to complete
3D technologies
an online questionnaire (n = 153) and a literature study provided 65 case studies to demonstrate the
Cultural heritage
Objects conservation-restoration
practical use of 3D technologies for loss compensation. The results of the questionnaire showed a positive
Loss compensation trend towards 3D technologies in restoration projects. Seven main concerns were distinguished in the
Additive manufacturing survey and further discussed by means of the case studies: (i) The printing process and materials, (ii) the
3D model necessary knowledge, (iii) the applicability, (iv) ethical considerations, (v) required work and costs, (vi)
managing and storing data and (vii) the achieved results.
Although the main concerns are justified as there are many challenges to overcome, reassurance or first
answers to these concerns have been found in the varied applications of 3D technologies presented in the
case studies. The arguments pro and con 3D technologies, possible solutions for the mentioned concerns
and further research possibilities are subsequently presented in informative mind maps. This article and
the accompanying mind maps can as such assist the restorer in decision-making when considering using
3D technologies in restoration projects.
© 2020 The Author(s). Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Cet article est publié en Open Access sous
licence CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Research aims - To collect documented restoration projects in which 3D techno-

logies have assisted in the reconstruction of lost parts (literature
To provide a state of the art and further insights concerning study, section 4)
the knowledge and application of 3D technologies in conservation- - To provide a first set of answers for the concerns identified in the
restoration projects, the following research aims were defined: survey, and define knowledge gaps for future research (section 5)

- To map the use of 3D technologies for cultural heritage and spe-
cifically for conservation-restoration applications (introduction,
section 2)
- To survey the (aspiring/academic/professional) conservator-
restorer’s point of view on 3D technologies for loss compensation
on cultural heritage objects and to identify the main concerns
(questionnaire, section 3)
∗ Corresponding author.
Adresses e-mail : lien.acke@uantwerpen.be (L. Acke),
kristel.devis@uantwerpen.be (K. De Vis), stijn.verwulgen@uantwerpen.be
(S. Verwulgen), jouke.verlinden@uantwerpen.be (J. Verlinden).
2. Introduction
The profession of a conservator-restorer is bound by tradition
and it is historically founded on the manual skills necessary to
produce the cultural heritage objects. Yet, it has evolved into a par-
ticularly multidisciplinary occupation and recently the use of 3D
technologies has been noticed in the documentation, research, pre-
servation, conservation-restoration and dissemination of cultural
heritage (CH). The variety of digital acquisition and manufactu-
ring methodologies in other industries allows for projecting these
possibilities onto the field of CH and it is specifically applicable in
the reconstruction of volumetric missing parts. Often in close col-
laboration with CH professionals, the use of 3D technologies has

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2020.12.003
1296-2074/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
L. Acke et al.
been the topic of research since the 1990 s, with a major increase
in interest from 2010 onwards.
Although this increased use of 3D technologies is notable in
scientific literature, it is unknown to what extent professional
conservators-restorers are acquainted with 3D technologies for use
in loss compensation and to what extent they already have been
applied. It is also unclear if the restorer feels a need to use these
technologies and if the restorer is eager to (learn how to) use it in
their practice. We believe that there is a lack of familiarity with 3D
technologies and their potential in restoration. Thus, the question
arises what the most common concerns, limitations or holdbacks
restorers encounter when (thinking of) implementing 3D techno-
logies in their work. Moreover, a comprehensive framework for
educating students and conservator-restorers does not yet exist. By
means of a survey in the conservation community and a literature
study, this article aims to provide a framework for decision-making
by informing the reader on the already researched topics and exe-
cuted restoration cases.
The structure of this article is presented in Fig. 1. In the remain-
der of this introduction (section 2.1–3), appropriate terminology is
presented next to a state of the art (STAR) on the general application
of 3D technologies in CH and on the specific application within the
conservation-restoration practice (CR). The methodology and the
results of a questionnaire, in order to research the opinion, expe-
rience and concerns on 3D technologies is written down in section
3. To react to the mentioned concerns, a literature study is des-
cribed in section 4 to collect all the documented restoration case
studies, which make use of 3D technologies in order to reconstruct
missing parts (loss compensation). The results of the questionnaire
and literature study are combined and discussed in section 5.
2.1. Terminology
3D technologies is an umbrella term for 3D scanning or digital
acquisition, digital modelling and additive or subtractive manu-
facturing. Applying 3D technologies within the field of cultural
heritage and conservation-restoration can be assumed a new field
of research. Therefore, an appropriate jargon has been established
and should be used correctly, to prevent misuse and misconcep-
tion. In this regard we would like to emphasize the terminology
defined by ICOM-CC for the conventional meanings of the profes-
sion of conservator-restorer and its activities [1]. In this publication
we focus on loss compensation, according to these definitions we
will therefore use ‘the restorer’ as a general name for someone who
practices this kind of restoration work, while the abbreviation ‘CR’
will be used to refer to the conservation-restoration practice.
For the digital part we take in account the London Charter [2] and
the Principles of Seville [3]. The latter defines this field of research
as Virtual Archaeology and explains terms such as virtual restora-
tion, virtual anastylosis, virtual reconstruction and virtual recreation.
In addition to this, Lopez [4] mentions the term virtual conserva-
tion. For more spatial and spectral related terminology Moitinho
De Almeide et al. [5] defines accuracy, precision, resolution, and
uncertainty. They also distinguish the terms artefact, feature, recons-
truction and texture from a technological and a cultural heritage
related viewpoint. An exercise of employing the Principles of the
London Charter is presented by Hermon and Niccolucci [6]. Termi-
nology in this article is used according to these definitions.
2.2. 3D technologies for cultural heritage
In the last two decades, many aspects of digital models for CH
have been described. This includes digital acquisition techniques
and their advantages for CH [7–11] and the possibilities of repro-
ductions of these digital models [12–17]. Taking in account these
references, five general purposes for use in CH can be defined, which
273
Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288
are elaborated in the next paragraphs: Research, Preservation,
Dissemination and Conservation-Restoration (2.3). A 3D model
can serve multiple purposes at once and all of these purposes have
Documentation as overarching purpose.
Research aided with 3D technologies allows for non-intrusive,
detailed visual examination of both the exterior and the inter-
ior of the object, without manipulation or impact on the physical
integrity of the artefact [15]. Therefore, it is or can often be
complementary to analytical research. Volumetric and detailed
visualisation is possible by executing a (micro) computed tomo-
graphy [18,19] and by reverse engineering [20]. Furthermore, 3D
technologies can be deployed for research into the verification of
authenticity [21], the morphological comparison of a statue [22]
and the attribution of works of art [23]. Moreover, the acquired digi-
tal models can be disseminated and digitally preserved for future
research [24].
Next to archiving and digital preservation of the digital models,
preservation purposes include digital depot management [25],
massive digitization strategies [26], custom-made packaging desi-
gns [27,28] and 3D technologies to assist monitoring over time
[29,30].
Regarding the dissemination, digital models can be employed
for education, for fruition of CH and in-depth visualisation. By repli-
cation, mixed reality and online dissemination, digital models can
provide additional sensory and spatial layers of information to the
viewer. Examples include replication as alternative for exhibiting a
very fragile piece [19], for tactile experiences [31,32] for the blind
and visually impaired [33], for better understanding of an object
[34], or even for commercial purposes [35]. The use of mixed rea-
lity offers advantages for the CH property and the experience of
visiting on or off site, demonstrated by cases such as a virtual wing
of the Anne Frank House [36], a virtual tour of Versailles [37] and
the Museum of the World offered at your home desktop by the
British Museum [38]. Augmented reality offers opportunities for
complementary visualisations on site [39,40]. Additionally, these
digital models can be made available online by cultural institutions
through platforms such as Sketchfab [41].
2.3. 3D technologies for conservation-restoration
Scopigno, Cignoni, Callieri, et al. [42] defined two ways of using
digital models for supporting conservation-restoration work of CH:
the 3D model as supporting media (2.3.1) and the 3D model as a
research tool for CR work (2.3.2). The next paragraphs discusses
recent literature on these applications. An example of the versatile
use of 3D models is demonstrated in the restoration of the Fountain
of Neptune in Bologna, which reports nine ways of adopting 3D
models: as a support tool for documentation, for various research
regarding the CR work and for a reconstruction of a missing part
[43].
2.3.1. 3D model as supporting media
A 3D model can serve as supporting media, in order to document
a restoration project or for archival and integration of multime-
dia data produced by scientific studies. This includes archiving and
presenting information concerning the restoration, possibly in the
form of a virtual condition report [44], documenting 3D objects
and related information in a software package [45] or a collabo-
rative platform [46,47]. Other research includes the orientation of
archive images on 3D models [48].
2.3.2. 3D model for research
A 3D model can also serve as an instrument or tool for the exe-
cution of specific investigations. A common example is the study of
an artwork before or during its treatment. Moreover, it is possible
to combine 2D, 3D and multispectral images for research and to
L. Acke et al.
Fig. 1. Structure of the article.
provide optimal preservation of this documentation [49]. Techni-
cal drawings of CH artefacts can be produced [50] and 3D models
can assist in monitoring the artefact’s state of preservation, as men-
tioned before.
2.3.3. 3D model as a tool for restoration methodologies
In a more recent publication Scopigno, Cignoni, Pietroni, et al.
[12] mention that 3D printing can be relevant in restoration metho-
dologies. Because of the many possibilities for using a 3D model
within the process of a virtual or a physical restoration, we believe
it is justified to add ‘the 3D model as a tool for restoration metho-
dologies’ as a third category on how 3D technologies can assist
CR work. A structure of this category is presented in Fig. 2 and
is based upon the literature study, as discussed in detail in this
publication.
Virtual restorations are restorations that remain virtual and they
can be considered a study of a previous state of the object, based on
existing documentation. Methods for various kinds of virtual res-
torations can be distinguished, such as virtual restorations of lost
polychromy [51–53], virtual anastylosis [54,55] and virtual recons-
tructions [56–59].
These virtually restored 3D models, can be virtually displayed
for dissemination purposes or can lead to a digitally manufactured
physical reproduction (e.g. a 3D print or other type of replica of the
restoration), but not necessarily to a physically restored CH object.
Specifically for loss compensation, starting from the virtual resto-
ration and its evidence based virtual reconstruction, it can evolve
into a physical restoration, for example by 3D printing the virtual
reconstruction and attaching it to the CH object. As such a virtual
restoration is the first step in the process of executing a physical
restoration, and not the goal itself. Similarly, generating a struc-
ture to support the object can be included in this categorisation, as
the 3D model made it possible to generate this structure, to stabilise
and to restore the object.
Similar to the other two categories (2.3.1 and 2.3.2), the third
category is not subsidiary to the others, but can occur simulta-
neously or consecutively. Whereas the two first categories can be
executed merely by data acquisition of the CH object, the third
will additionally (but not exclusively) require digital modelling for
reconstruction and digital manufacturing.
3. Online questionnaire
3.1. Materials & methods
A survey was set up with the objective of gathering know-
ledge about the point of view, the experience and the concerns
of restorers regarding the use of 3D technologies in the CR prac-
tice. The target audience of the survey was set to the academic
field, including students (future possible users of 3D technolo-
gies), researchers and professors in Conservation Studies (who
274
Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288
play a major role in the knowledge generation and education),
and to professional conservator-restorers (the potential practical
users).
The questionnaire was made in QualtricsXM and consisted out
of closed questions, rating questions, conditional questions, open
questions and multiple-choice questions. The list with questions
can be found in appendix A (supplementary material online). A
web-based, publicly online distributed survey was chosen because
of the speed and ease of acquisition and the large target audience.
International art conservation related social media groups often
consists out of a variety of members, including students, resear-
chers, professors and restorers. The questionnaire was distributed
in October 2019, mainly through the Global Conservation Forum
of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) (at the time
1331 members) and through six international social media groups
(9335, 7939, 6104, 2851, 1020 and 136 members, with possible
co-occurring members in two or more groups) and one national
group (students of Conservation Studies, University of Antwerp,
221 members).
3.2. Results
In December 2019, 153 completed questionnaires were collec-
ted. 61% identified them as conservator-restorer, 21% as student,
11% as researcher and 6% as professor or teacher. 12% out of total
identified themselves as being part of two or more of the aforemen-
tioned. The origin of 71% of the respondents is Europe, followed by
24% of North Americans and a minor group of 2% is based in Asia.
South America, Africa and Australia are each represented by 1% of
the respondents.
The respondents were asked after their material specialty as it
is often the type of material, rather than the form of the restored
object that will decide if the use of 3D technologies is suitable. For
example wood will react differently to a plastic 3D print compa-
red to porcelain and glass cannot as easily be scanned as stone.
As it is clear that in conservation one is not often specialised in
just one material, many respondents listed more than one material.
The total percentages and co-occurrence of the material specialties
are shown in Fig. 3. A preponderance is noticeable in the more 3D
range of materials (ceramics (39%), glass (31%), wood (23%), metal
(22%), stone (21%), modern materials (14%)) compared to mainly
2D materials (paintings (12%), paper (9%), textiles (8%), murals (7%),
photography (6%)). Generally, these mainly 3D materials are com-
mon in the overarching specialisation of objects conservation. The
two last categories are ‘other’ (22%) and ‘no specialisation’ (8%).
Respondents who checked ‘other’ also often checked mainly 3D
specialties; stone, ceramics, glass, metal, wood, modern materials
and the 2D specialisation; paper. The following ‘other’ special-
ties and amounts were noted in the remark section: books (5),
archaeological objects (4), objects (4), technical/industrial heritage
(3), mosaics and stucco (2), organic materials (2), palaeonto-
L. Acke et al. Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288

Fig. 2. Possibilities for using a 3D model as a tool for restoration methodologies.

Fig. 3. Combined view of the co-occurrence compared to the total of material specialties documented in the survey (for the percentages of the co-occurrence, please refer
to the data table in Appendix B, supplementary material online).

logy (2), polychromy (2), public art and outdoor sculptures (2),
3D printing (1), architecture (1), clocks (1), frames (1), heritage
science (1), leather (1), preventive conservation (1), underwater
excavation (1).
The series of questions aimed to measure the respondents need
or the likelihood of using 3D technologies and to define the fields of
improvement. 80% feels there is a general need for 3D technologies,
86% feels 3D technologies can help in their work and 78% has had
case studies where 3D technologies could have been an aid (Fig. 4).
75% has considered using 3D technologies in their work, and high
percentage of 44% actually did. Generally the respondents who used
digital technologies, did this through a third party (a company or
other person). Out of the 44% experienced users 50% has scanned
before, 49% has experience with 3D modelling and 39% has had
something digitally manufactured. Generally, these respondents
have executed 1–5 projects and these mainly involved either small
objects (<20 × 20 × 20 cm) or big objects (>150 × 150 × 150 cm), Fig. 4. Graph depicting the need for 3D technologies.
and to a lesser extent it involved medium sized objects (between

275
L. Acke et al.
Fig. 5. Graph depicting the comparison of general limitations.
20 × 20 × 20 and 50 × 50 × 50 cm or between 50 × 50 × 50 and
150 × 150 × 150 cm). Out of the 56% who did not yet use 3D tech-
nologies, the majority would like to try out 3D scanning (82%), 3D
modelling (76%) and digital manufacturing (81%). There is no clear
preference whether they would rather do this through a third party
or on their own.
Concerning the wide range of 3D technologies, it is mainly
the availability which forms an obstruction, followed by the price
and the complexity (Fig. 5). Next to these general obstructions,
the respondents were asked to give an indication of their main
concerns. Out of the 93 (=100%) written answers collected, the pro-
cesses and suitability of materials used in additive manufacturing
(32%) is their biggest concern. Concerns about the lack of know-
ledge to perform a qualitative virtual reconstruction (21%) are also
a major setback for many respondents, as well as concerns about the
applicability of these methods (11%), ethical considerations (12%),
the required work and costs (11%), the managing and storage of
data (9%) and concerns about the expected results compared to the
traditional approach (3%). More specific subjects within these cate-
gories are presented in Fig. 7, next to additional concerns found in
the literature study. These concerns will be discussed in section 5.
3.3. Discussion
Although it seems like a great amount of people has been rea-
ched, the actual number of people who received the call is unclear
because respondents may not be engaged online during distri-
bution and online information is easily flooded. Nonetheless, we
believe the targeted audience in the mentioned online community
is more likely to filling in a questionnaire because they are involved
in these groups and have chosen to become a member to be updated
on art conservation related events, information and research. The
tendency towards filling in the questionnaire also depends on whe-
ther or not they already have experience with these technologies.
Moreover, Fig. 3 shows how most of the respondents are affiliated
with a mainly 3D material. It shows indirectly who is interested
in the topic and it therefore gives an indication for the kind of
objects (mainly 3D specialties) that qualify for a virtual recons-
truction. Therefore, the discussed results are a representation of
respondents interested in the topic, but might not be representative
for the whole profession.
Because being a restorer is not a regulated occupation, the popu-
lation size and response rate is hard to identify. To determine the
reached population we can base ourselves upon the highest number
of members in a reached group (n = 9335), or upon official numbers
of members of an international institution such as ICOM-CC, which
has over 3000 members (n = 3000) [60]. Therefore, with a confi-
276
Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288
dence level of 95%, the worst-case margin of error of the answers is
7,86% in the first case and 7,72% in the second case. These error rates
are quite similar and therefore the sample size can be considered
consistent. Because of the indicative characteristic of the question-
naire, we aimed to acquire general insights, the margin of error is
acceptable [61,62]. For an external survey, a target response rate
of 10–15% is sufficient [63] and research has shown that response
rates in web-based surveys are much lower (<20%) comparing to
traditional methods such as postal surveys [64]. Again, taking in
account the assumed population size described above, a response
rate of 1,63% is calculated in the first case and 5,10% in the second
case. This low number can be explained by the online flood of infor-
mation and therefore possibly unreached call for respondents and
by the fact that respondents were not personally addressed and
motivated to fill in the questionnaire.
A second section of this questionnaire included exploratory
questions about the concept and use of a digital toolbox as an infor-
mative framework. However, the results thereof will be discussed
in a future publication as they do not yet apply on this work. The
concept of a digital toolbox to aid in the process of virtual restora-
tion was previously presented at the ICOM-CC/ICON Recent Advances
in Glass and Ceramics Conservation conference, London 4–7 Septem-
ber 2019 [65]. In order to receive more focused feedback on the
concept and use of this digital toolbox, the questionnaire was also
distributed among the participants (152 members). This means a
slight bias in the sample distribution is possible.
Because the general limitations (Fig. 5) were already presen-
ted in the questionnaire, they are less represented in the main
concerns. Nonetheless, they are indirectly included and discussed
in the discussion in section 5. The seven suggested categories are
a representation of the concerns of students, restorers and acade-
mics active in the field. It is therefore possible readers have other
concerns or experiences or have come across other limitations.
4. Literature study
4.1. Materials & methods
A literature study was conducted to find all of the relevant, docu-
mented restoration projects where 3D technologies assisted in the
reconstruction and restoration of a CH artefact with missing parts.
Because this subject balances on the verge of art, science and
technology, rather than a broad array of keywords, we decided to
focus on a diverse set of search engines. Scientific peer-reviewed
databases (Web of Science, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, IEEE
Xplore, ScienceDirect, ISPRS Archives) were consulted in addition to
scientific non peer-reviewed databases (Google scholar, Research-
Gate, Academia) and art and restoration related databases (Jstor,
CoOL, AATA, ICOM-CC, CeROArt). To broaden the search to the non-
academic field and as such verify the use of 3D technologies in
the professional CR practice, the same keywords were also ente-
red in Google. Based upon the elements that should be included, an
initial keyword search was conducted in the publication pool: the
articles should handle about the use of 3D or digital technologies
for restoration of cultural heritage (‘3D digital restoration cultu-
ral heritage’). Because of the often national characteristics of these
type of publications some translations were made such as ‘Stampa
3D restauro’ (Italian) and ‘3D printen restauratie’(Dutch). The term
‘3D scanning’ was avoided because this would give too much cases
where only data acquisition was employed. Phrases such as ‘art
restoration’ or ‘cultural heritage’ were always added for filtering
results from the medical and industrial field. Lastly, the focus was
set on objects conservation and not on built heritage, however, if
found and applicable, such cases were included because of its rele-
vant methodology. This way, 40 articles were found. By collecting
all their keywords, a word cloud was generated in order to show
L. Acke et al.
the frequency of the keywords. Based on the word cloud, a second
search was executed with other relevant keywords, which provided
six more articles. Consequently, a back- and forward search provi-
ded eight articles. Two documents were sent privately to the first
author of this article. The following keywords and combinations
thereof were entered in the search:
• 3D, technology
• Virtual, digital
• Computer aided, model, modelling
• Printing, additive manufacturing, rapid prototyping, digital fabrica-
tion
• Art, restoration, conservation, cultural heritage
Articles found in the consecutive searches were selected based
upon the achievement of producing the physical filling for loss
compensation. A first assessment was based on title and abstract.
Thereafter the article was read and the goal of the intervention or
research was defined. As such, based upon the categorisation of
Barack [66], we could (i) include cases for loss compensation and
(ii) exclude cases for secondary support, reproductions or replicas
of the digital models and virtual restorations that remain vir-
tual or have been replicated. A final category (‘other’) was added
which encompasses case studies with decorative objects that have
missing parts but which are not related to art restoration. These
cases may have had a different aesthetic, ethical and/or practical
approach compared to conventional treatments and were there-
fore excluded. However, it is worth mentioning that cases with a
purpose of secondary support are often very similar in materials
and procedures and can be relevant for this research. The search
was not based upon this goal, so the acquired articles may not be
exhaustive, and they were therefore excluded from this research.
Subsequently, the articles were classified based upon their
scientific relevance, including peer review and type of publication.
This information is presented in Table 1, in addition to the material
and type of object under restoration. Because of the diversity of the
findings and their sources (no more than two articles were found
within the same journal) it was found impossible to sort the docu-
ments based upon their five-year impact factor, h-index or CORE
rank. Instead, the number of citations mentioned in Google scholar
proved to be the most reliable method for comparing the impact of
articles from both the journals and conference proceedings. Atten-
tion should be paid, because the actual number of citations is often
lower in scientific peer-reviewed databases.
In order to find answers or solutions for the main concerns
expressed in the survey (section 3.2), the articles were read, coded
and analysed in qualitative data analysis software Nvivo 12 Pro.
4.2. Results
Based upon the goal of intervention, 56 articles were selected,
yielding a total of 65 case studies (Table 1). Included in the selec-
ted amount of cases are articles which reported the restoration
of multiple objects [67–69], and articles which reported different
approaches for the same or another similar object (marked with
‘(2)’ in Table 1) [70–72]. Some cases fit both in the category loss
compensation and secondary support [51,73,74] and were inclu-
ded in the category loss compensation. Some articles report on
two or more ways of reconstructing the missing part, but do not
state which method ultimately has been applied [75,76] and other
articles report on the restoration of multiple objects with exactly
the same methodology [77,78]. These articles are each represented
by one case study. Not all cases were confirmed to be executed. Two
cases were not finished, because future research was necessary [79]
or the completion was only temporary [80]. In other cases, it was
unclear if the restoration was finished or not [43,69,76,77,81–88],
277
Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288
because there was no after picture, or finishing steps (e.g. method of
attachment) were not mentioned. Some online webpages report on
a promising methodology and showed a case study as an example,
without providing much details on the object or the followed proce-
dure [84,89]. Nonetheless, these articles were included because of
their relevant applied methodology. The amount and quality of the
information provided in the articles highly depends on the back-
ground of the authors and on the type of publication. Generally, the
webpages are limited in describing the workflow, while technical
authors provide less context on the artefact and decision-making
for restoration.
An equal amount of stone cases and ceramics cases were docu-
mented; both 16 cases or each 25% of the total of cases. This is
followed by wood (18%), metal (12%), glass (6%), murals (5%), bone
(3%), wax (3%), paper (2%) and shells (2%). The most common object
types were sculptures (45%, including statues, putti or cherubs,
figurines, and funerary and fountain sculptures), ornaments (28%,
including building ornaments such as roof-end tiles, mouldings and
plinths), tableware (17%, including vessels, bowls, pots, jugs, and
vases) and building components (3%). Other object types included
a crown, artificial paper tree leaves, a mask, a skull and part of a ske-
leton (8%). The percentages of the materials are presented in Fig. 6
and can be compared to Fig. 3 in which the material specialties of
the questionnaire’s respondents is depicted. These percentages are
quite similar: mainly 3D object types made out of materials such
as stone, ceramics, metal and wood were documented. However,
more stone object case studies were noticed compared to the per-
centage of respondents with a stone affiliation. On the other hand,
the amount of glass object case studies is much lower because of
the co-occurrence with respondents who checked ceramics as a
material specialty.
4.3. Discussion
Many case studies have been found, but it is highly plausible
much more studies and restorations have already been executed,
especially taking in account that 44% of the respondents has had
experience with 3D technologies. Only the cases reported in scienti-
fic or popular literature can be found through scientific and generic
databases. Moreover, it is possible some cases have been overloo-
ked because they are only a minor part of a research article or
they have not been found because they are written in a language
other than English. However, articles in Italian, Spanish, Dutch,
French, German, and Korean have been found and were included
after translation. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations in the
described methodology of some articles is plausible due to imper-
fections in the translations. One article written in Persian [136] was
disregarded because of the language barrier. Two other Chinese
articles [137,138] were found, but were unavailable for downloa-
ding, because of unclear pay walls. These three articles are not
included in the literature study, but they are worth mentioning
because they may contain valuable information.
5. Discussion of the main concerns
What follows is an elaboration of the main concerns which have
emerged from the survey, and for which answers were found in the
literature study, and if applicable, in other references. The expres-
sed concerns and their answers are of paramount importance to
make 3D technologies available, safe, compatible and approachable
for the restorer and the CR practice. It is important to bear in mind
that seeing the advantages or disadvantages of 3D technologies is
often a matter of perspective and available resources. The cases
found in literature mostly express positives experiences, but it is
likely that negative experiences have preceded this.
 L. Acke et al.
Table 1
Collected articles which are, based upon their goals of intervention, included or excluded from the literature study. Further categorised based upon their scientific relevance (# for number of citations)
and defined by their material and object type. [92,96,97,118,122–135]
278

Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288

L. Acke et al. Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288

Fig. 6. Amount of case studies, per material specialty, found in literature. For comparison, the same categories of materials, scale and colours are used as in Fig. 3. Here, the
‘Other’ category includes the case studies with wax, bone and shells.

Fig. 7. Main concerns expressed by the respondents (black) and found in the literature study (grey).

The results of the literature study regarding the seven dis- composition not only differs from one AM process to the other, but
cussed main concerns (arguments con) and arguments pro 3D also from one manufacturer to the other. This variety makes com-
technologies, solutions, research or proposals are also available prehensive testing for suitability and objectively comparing the
as informative mind maps. These can be consulted online in the results challenging. Efforts have been made to test these materials
supplementary material (appendix C), or by visiting https://www. for suitability in CR by performing an Oddy test onto mainly FDM
researchgate.net/profile/Lien Acke/research. An example of such a samples [141,142]. Moreover, the American Institute for Conser-
mind map is given in Fig. 8, for the concern ‘Required work and vation has included some 3D printing materials in their Oddy
costs’. tested Materials database [143]. Although a limited amount of prin-
ting materials, passed the test and may be (temporarily) used, we
should bear in mind that this testing method was devised for use in
5.1. Printing process and materials
museum storage and packaging and not specifically for use in res-
toration. Therefore, Oddy test approved materials are worth trying
Only a limited amount of restoration interventions can be
out in practical restoration but long-term results for durable resto-
aided with 3D technologies. Of these cases, only a limited amount
rations may differ because of the different application.
includes the possible digital manufacturing of lost parts. Nonethe-
In the case studies the use of thermoplastic polymers (FDM)
less, the respondents considered the 3D printing process and its
filled with wood fibers [71,94,109] or stone powder [91] was noti-
materials to be the biggest concern.
ced. They have the advantage of a visual appearance which may
There are seven official 3D printing or Additive Manufacturing
be similar to that of the artefact, while the material properties
(AM) process categories. For a complete overview we refer to the
are more similar to the used polymer. Before applying the recons-
ASTM standard [139] and the 3D printing guide of 3D Hubs [140].
truction on a wooden frame, Cricchio [94] has artificially aged two
Five AM processes have been found in the case studies. Apart from
samples of wood filled filament and one styrene filament, prepa-
the 3D print being used as a draft, intermediary or final production,
red with adhesives and aggregates for evaluating the alterations
the number of times each AM process was used in those case studies
regarding decolourisation, deformation and detachment of the pre-
is indicated between brackets: Vat polymerisation (Stereolithogra-
paration layers. One of the wood filled filaments achieved the best
phy (SLA) (13)), Material extrusion (Fused Deposition Modelling
resistance to physico-chemical stress. However, Pamer [141] has
(FDM) (24) and cement-mortar based extrusion (1)), Material Jet-
researched wood, stone and bronze filled filaments with Thermal
ting (MJ) (11) (including Gel Dispensing Printing (1)), Binder jetting
Desorption and coupled Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
(BJ) (7) and Powder Bed Fusion (Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) (3)).
(TDS-GC/MS) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s). It was repor-
This demonstrates the popularity of FDM, SLA, MJ and BJ. FDM is
ted that because of the emission of VOC’s, they, similar to the
the most popular because it is a low-cost and widely available pro-
other FDM filaments (except for a researched co-polyester and a
cess [77,78]. SLA and MJ are known for producing detailed, accurate
PET filament), induce a potential risk to archaeological and cultural
prints, with minimal layer visibility, which makes it suitable for
heritage objects and that they should be avoided in long-term use.
aesthetic restorations [68,69,95]. BJ is often chosen because of its
Cimino et al. [144] mentions the possibility of swelling of the fila-
gypsum or sand like surface and thus its similarity with stone or
ments because of water absorption, which also induces a risk to the
ceramic objects [67,90,100].
object. In addition, Cimino et al. employed Thermogravimetric Ana-
In addition to these AM processes, a vast array of printing
lysis (TGA), Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy in Attenuated
materials (including thermoplastic polymers, thermosets photopo-
Total Reflection (FTIR-ATR) and Pyrolis Gas Chromatography/Mass
lymers and composite polymers) can be distinguished, of which the

279
L. Acke et al.
Spectrometry (Py-GC/MS) for classifying the various VOC’s detec-
ted in filaments. Although reliable results have been obtained, the
researches of Pamer [141] and Cimino et al. [144] were limited to
respectively 13 and 14 samples, used in one AM process: FDM.
Comparing these results to the aforementioned array of possible
printing materials, it shows the impossibility to characterise them
all, especially taking into account manufacturing differences. This
remains a problem and the idea of constructing a list of poten-
tial safe materials by performing more detailed research has been
suggested by both Cimino et al. [145] and Cricchio [94].
The choice of material used in digital manufacturing also
depends on the goal: the production of either a draft, interme-
diary or as a final product for loss compensation. Polymer printing
materials can be generally accepted for draft and intermediary pro-
duction to assist in the process of reconstructing the missing parts
but are to be avoided for final production because of the unknown
composition, aging and deterioration. Yet, and as also supported
by the amount of case studies, performing a 3D printed restoration
onto inorganic surfaces induces less risk than attaching a 3D print
onto or near organic surfaces. An overview of the placement of 3D
prints onto or near organic or inorganic surfaces is documented in
Table 2. In any case, care must be taken when placing these res-
tored objects near other fragile or organic objects and systematic
observation is advised [70,144]. Multiple cases have been reported
using a polymer 3D print directly on an organic surface. In these
cases, close observation is strongly advised, and dismantling might
be desired.
For the final production, at this time, the only 100% safe
options to ensure compatibility with the original materials include
using known materials in combination with indirect printing
(e.g. 3D printing moulds [70,76,86,87,99], recasting in an inert
material [66,71,93], lost wax casting [72,73,119]) or the use of
known materials for subtractive manufacturing (e.g. wood, stone,...)
[85,88,102,113,117]. Another option could be the use of similar and
compatible materials (e.g. ceramic and metal printing) although
there might be other limitations, such as shrinkage and deforma-
tion and possible residual elements.
The uncertainty about the cost, quality and accuracy of AM pro-
cesses can be countered by metrological comparisons with the
digital file, which evaluates the accuracy and consistency of AM
products and materials [104]. Several case studies [73,98] proved
to be cost saving while the accuracy of the result was positively
highlighted. Generally, digital manufacturing technologies have
improved much over the last years and it can be assured an accu-
rate, consistent and qualitative print will be obtained [104,107].
Mostly, if an inferior print has been produced, the problem may be
the quality of the digital file itself, perhaps originating from a low
resolution 3D scan or inaccurate digital modelling [114,146].
Another concern is the post-processing of 3D printed parts and
resulting loss in surface quality and details. As mentioned, most
and some specifically (SLA and MJ, because of their low layer thi-
ckness) are capable of producing very detailed results with a high
surface quality and therefore they do not require intensive sur-
face post-processing [69,95,100]. Others, such as FDM, are known
to have a visible stair stepping effect. This effect is AM process
category dependent and can be avoided or minimalised by setting
a lower layer thickness [147]. Although a low layer thickness of
16 ␮m can be achieved with the PolyJet technique (MJ) Beentjes
et al. [72] advises to slow down the printing process to minimalize
the stair stepping effect. If the virtual reconstruction is properly
designed, a limited amount of post-processing is required, regard-
less of the AM process. Removing necessary support material is
the most common post-processing step, but for some printing
processes, soluble support material can be used [98,119]. Some
AM processes do not require support material, but they require
other post-processing steps, such as post-curing or consolidation
280
Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288
to regain strength. Besides this, one can incorporate a retouching
strategy in their design process, such as providing a decrease in
surface level, in order to apply a traditional finishing layer. This
way, the final surface appearance can be controlled [114]. Limi-
ted research was found on the application of ground layers or
retouching media on 3D printing materials. The research of Cric-
chio [94] showed some tests on three FDM-filaments, including
artificial ageing on samples prepared with a ground layer next to
a coating and absorbance test for retouching media. For general
applications, post-processing for FDM, SLA and SLS printed parts
can include spray painting or application of epoxies or acrylic paints
[148]. However, more research is needed regarding the compati-
bility, adherence, aging and deterioration of traditional CR media
applied on 3D prints.
The size of the build area can be a limitation, but this can be
helped by post-processing [76] by for example cold welding or
gluing [87,149]. Alternatively, specialised 3D print service com-
panies often possess customised printers with larger build beds
[150]. New printing processes and materials are constantly being
developed, some of which may be very suitable for use in restora-
tion. Xu et al. [116] demonstrated Material Extrusion with mortar,
Ferello [84] reported on the creation of customisable 3D printed
moulds for concrete and Sismaitalia [89] used Gel Dispensing Prin-
ting for reproducing sizable building ornaments. Considering these
explorations and expansions of 3D technologies for use in CH and
CR, next to the rapid evolvement [79,104], the available 3D prin-
ting materials and techniques [78], and the increasing affordability
[66,108], we can conclude 3D technologies will become more and
more available for the CR practice.
5.2. Required knowledge
According to our survey, the required prior knowledge for qua-
litative performance of the digital tasks is a second major concern.
These necessary skills often have to be sought elsewhere, by col-
laboration [70,78,85,91,100] or outsourcing [68,79,83]. However,
for reasons such as availability or costs, this might not always be
possible. Of the studied articles, 39% has executed the research by
direct collaboration with a 3D company or a technical department
of a university (IT, product design, engineering). 32% achieved an
independent execution of the project and 13% percent relied on
collaboration with other CH or CR experts (CR practice, museum,
CH or CR university, including architecture departments or compa-
nies). The remaining 16% are restorations or research executed by
3D companies or technical departments which seemingly did not
include CH or CR experts. They overcome the digital challenges and
they provide new insights, but they often lack the ethical consi-
derations and decision-making deep-rooted in CH and CR expert
knowledge.
The creation of a 3D model and the subsequent steps towards
restoration is, as Wefers et al. [151] states, a multidisciplinary task.
The detailed requirements are set by CH experts, but the task itself
is often executed by technical experts. Principle 1 of the Seville Prin-
ciples specifically highlights the interdisciplinarity for any project
executed with 3D technologies [3]. Both Hawotte [121] and Antlej,
Eric et al. [152] have clarified the need for education and for more
knowledge about the requirements and limitations of these tech-
nologies. Antlej, Eric et al. [152] specifically stated the information
is often too technical for CH experts and they are primarily interes-
ted in the final result. However, qualitative use of 3D technologies
requires insight not only in the properties of the CH artefact but also
knowledge about the specifications of the employed devices. This
lack of knowledge can lead to misconception between expectations
and reality in terms of workload, costs, time, risks and final results.
To bridge the gap between the CH experts and the 3D experts,
Hawotte [121] advocates the constitution of a new profession, a
L. Acke et al.
Table 2
Distinction based upon organic or inorganic CH objects and the application of a 3D print or alternative as a final product.
The number of case studies in one article is indicated between brackets, references connected with a line represents different
approaches reported in the same article.
go between, balancing between the field of CH and technological
innovations. As mentioned in Principle 8 of the Seville Principles, a
more durable solution should therefore be sought in setting op edu-
cational programs within the existing art conservation programs
[3].
In this regard, many research articles cover the aspect of digital
acquisition of CH artefacts [153–156] and more and more guide-
lines and manuals specifically composed for the CH community
are made available online. Examples include the manual of EULAC
Museums on photogrammetry for digitisation of CH [157], as well
as the guidelines and case studies provided by the 3D-ICONS project
[158]. Furthermore, 3D companies have every benefit of designing
their devices in such a way a broad audience can employ their pro-
ducts (e.g. automatic post-processing with Artec 3D devices and
Artec Studio software [159]). In these cases, limited knowledge
is required for an acceptable result. To our knowledge, no speci-
fic guidelines are available for digital modelling of missing pieces,
although in the computational domain advanced reconstruction
strategies based on spatial geometric features prove to be pro-
mising for restoration purposes [160,161]. From the documented
case studies it is clear that digital sculpting (e.g. ZBrush, Mesh-
mixer, Blender,. . .) is more often used compared to traditional CAD,
NURBS or polygon based modelling. Trying out different software
packages will give more insight into the characteristics which are
of importance for reconstruction [79]. However, digital sculpting
can be considered the most intuitive. It allows the usage of a haptic
device, similar to holding a paintbrush, which facilitates the free
form sculpting of volumes [104,111]. Moreover, hybrid modelling
strategies have been documented frequently in the case studies,
switching from digital to traditional modelling (sculpting, casting
and moulding) and vice versa [66,72,87,93,115]. An example of such
a hybrid conversion is shown in the case documented by Hayes
et al. [85], which reports the replacement of a deteriorated stone
relief sculpture by digitisation of the current state, digital fabrica-
tion of a foam model on which clay repairs are manually sculpted,
digitisation, digital fabrication in sandstone and hand finishing the
sculpture. With regards to preparing a digital file for 3D printing,
general rules apply such as importing a watertight model (in a. stl
file), checking and fixing errors, support generation, slicing, and
exporting the G-code to the printer [162]. Exploring such, often
open source, software (e.g. Ultimaker Cura, PrusaSlicer, Formlabs
PreForm,. . .) aids to understand these parameters and it also helps
to see the printer’s capabilities, such as layer and wall thicknesses.
Despite these efforts to make 3D technologies more known
and accessible, a learning curve will remain. In article 3.8 of the
ICOM-CC Definition of the Profession [163] it is written that “the
conservator-restorer cannot be an expert in art or cultural history,
chemistry, and/or other natural or human sciences”. It is clear that
nowadays, we can add 3D technologies as another expertise. Each
project generates knowledge to this expertise, whether it was suc-
281
Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288
cessful or not. Therefore, this research also aims to bring forth an
overview of this knowledge, for restorers to be able to obtain the
relevant information to manage or perform digital tasks.
5.3. Applicability
It was stated by the respondents of our survey that 3D technolo-
gies have limited use in CR work. As explained in Principle 2 of the
London Charter [2], 3D technologies cannot and should not replace
traditional treatments but as explained in section 2.2 and 2.3 of this
article, 3D models can serve multiple purposes before, during and
after restoration projects.
It may seem as 3D technologies have limited applications within
the more 2D range of materials (e.g. paintings, paper, murals, tex-
tiles,..), but it is important to keep an open mind as a plethora of
possibilities is hidden in these technologies and new applications
emerge every day. To give some examples; digital knitting may be
suitable for losses in historic garments, Layered Object Manufactu-
ring (LOM or Selective Deposition Lamination (SDL)), which makes
use of layers of paper, may be used for restoration of objects made
out of papier-mâché and recent research [164] has enabled the 3D
printing of paintings with the right gloss, colour and topography,
which opens up possibilities in paintings conservation.
It is true that 3D technologies may not be suitable for every
object; every object is unique and so is every restoration. This is true
for traditional treatments and it is also challenging to generalise
the virtual restoration’s digital workflow. However, it is possible to
order the steps on a relative scale to the moment in the restoration
timeline. These structures can provide a support during the virtual
restoration. Examples are given by Zhang et al. [81], who has com-
posed restoration process chain maps, Kalasarinis and Koutsoudis
[78] who described their pipeline from digital acquisition to fitting
the 3D printed pieces in the object and a conceptual framework
of the ‘life cycle of a digitally restored object’ has been proposed
in Acke et al. [65]. The latter will be the subject of future research
in which this conceptual framework will function as a structure to
organise the possibilities within each step of the digital workflow.
In addition to the necessary multi- and interdisciplinary work,
restorers faced with difficulty in finding the right methodology can
benefit from the discussed restoration cases as these cases can be
seen as a source of inspiration for novel treatments. Table 1 can as
such give a first direction for finding restoration cases with a similar
object type and/or material properties. Moreover, the importance
of research, documentation and dissemination of the results, for
example for testing and evaluating new techniques or searching for
low-cost solutions, is indispensable [77,165]. Furthermore, papers
mentioned in section 2.2 and 2.3 cover many aspects on digitisation
and digital manufacturing for CH, often including technical aspects
such as resolution and accuracy, next to suitable (open source) soft-
ware and visual comparisons of different systems. In section 5.2
L. Acke et al.
some possibilities for hybrid and digital modelling strategies have
been discussed. Eventually, the choices that are made are highly
dependent on the properties and morphology of the object itself
and the final expected result [73,113].
5.4. Ethical considerations
Decision-making can be considered the first important step in
both a traditional and in a virtual restoration process. These deci-
sions are based upon professional guidelines, consisting out of
ethical codes and defined by international charters composed by
professional bodies [166–168], kept up to date by modern revi-
sions [169,170]. Included in the London Charter [2] is principle 4 on
Documentation in which it is made clear that the purpose and the
rationale (Knowledge Claims) of the computer-based visualisation
(and by extension the virtual restoration) should be documented,
next to the research sources (Principle 3), the process and methods.
To summarize, the most fundamental principles of the CR prac-
tice include maintaining the integrity and authenticity of CH,
minimal intervention, usage of reversible, compatible and non-
harmful materials and methods, and complete documentation of
the treatment. In itself, these acknowledged principles do not
change when a restoration is executed with the aid of 3D technolo-
gies. The question why to restore an CH object and reconstruct lost
parts has to be answered before executing any treatment, whether
it is a traditional or a digital process. As Khunti [146] advocates,
using 3D technologies should always be a well-considered and cer-
tainly not an automatic choice. In addition to the known historical
charters on authenticity [166,171], the London Charter [2] and the
Principles of Seville [3], Di Giuseppantonio et al. [172] provides a set
of reference texts regarding authenticity, CH and 3D reproductions
and reconstructions. Taking all of these guidelines in consideration,
the decision-making process remains the same, with the only diffe-
rence that the execution can now include the possibility to use 3D
technologies during treatment. In this regard, multi- and interdis-
ciplinary work [100,119] and critical evaluation [114] are essential
to ensure a qualitative result.
Provided with documentation on the object’s original state the
authors actively choose for 3D technologies because of the various
virtual reconstruction possibilities. These options can include vir-
tual anastylosis [51,103] and digital simulations [79,111,120] next
to 3D modelling options such as reconstructing complex shapes
[69,81,90,113], copying [68,99,112], mirroring [82,93,106,108],
scaling [72,99], accurate fitting on the fracture surfaces [102,104]
and usage of the 3D model as an alternative for moulding and
casting [68,76,94]. Virtual reconstruction also allows performing
multiple copies, iterations and hypotheses [75,76,94,101] and
reproduction for future restorations [67,72]. These reconstruction
possibilities have the advantage of using the 3D model itself as a
source of documentation [87,113,114] and they can make it pos-
sible to objectively reconstruct lost parts, exclude the unwittingly
subjective interpretation of the restorer, and therefore maintaining
the authenticity [99]. Moreover, 3D technologies are often chosen
by the authors because they can make impossible restorations pos-
sible, such as fragile [79,87,98] or complex [81,90,107] objects, or
projects which would be costly and time consuming without the
aid of 3D technologies [69,70,73,76].
The decision-making of the case studies, often mention
the principles of reversibility [72,74,110,114], retractability or
recognisability [73,91,99,106], compatibility [72,73,103] and the
advantage of limiting contact with the object [103,114]. The use
of 3D technologies as a less invasive method, which induces less
risk for (parts of) the object is a frequently stated argument
[70,72,73,75,98,103,106,111]. Furthermore, the work often does
not have to be done in situ, because the reconstruction process
happens in a virtual environment [78,102]. It has also been argued
282
Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288
that 3D printed materials are lighter [76,78] and as a temporary
material they are less harmful compared to for example traditional
plaster or silicones intermediaries [78,86].
One concern of the respondents was that 3D technologies will
cause a loss of value of the traditional craftsmanship. As restorers,
we try to ensure the longevity of cultural heritage and we seek
adequate ways of doing this. Because of its existence, synthetic
materials were used in the 20th century and research has ensu-
red the safe use of these products. Similarly, the 21th century can
bring us other opportunities, such as 3D technologies, of which we
can take advantage and on the contrary use it as an alternative for
the, perhaps inevitable, disappearing craftsmanship [83,116].
The legal framework, on the copyright of the files for example,
is not much discussed in the case studies, nor in the Principles
of Seville and the London Charter. However, the articles gathered
in Di Giuseppantonio et al. [172] are, as previously mentioned, a
good starting point. Included is the article of Jeffrey [173] which
highlights the definitions of authorship, ownership and copyright.
Koller et al. [174] discusses ways of preventing intellectual property
discussions for digital archives. In any case, from the start of any
project, clear understanding of these aspects is important to avoid
misunderstanding.
Finally, it must be noted that 3D printing technologies are not
among the most ecological treatments. In the case studies it was
argued that less waste material is produced [73,81] and that biopo-
lymers (PLA) [70] can be an environmental-friendly solution. On the
downside, using biopolymers can in turn have consequences for the
durability of the restoration, when exposed to heat, humidity and
microbes [175]. Recently, attention for sustainable CR treatments
has been raised [176], but to the authors knowledge a research
based comparison between the sustainability of digitally aided res-
torations and traditional treatments, has not yet been published.
5.5. Required work and costs
The required work and precise costs are difficult to anticipate.
Comparing with other projects can be helpful, but it should be kept
in mind that dependency on the available equipment and skills of
persons involved is high. It was argued by the respondents that
employing 3D technologies is costly and time consuming, while
many of the case studies advocate the cost [69,76,81,106] and
time saving aspects [69,70,81,87]. In addition, experienced users
often state that the employed virtual methods are more efficient
[68,71,76,83] and less labour intensive [89,90,105,116], compa-
red to traditional treatments. For example, a low-cost method can
be found in a low-cost 3D printing process, such as FDM, which
functions as an intermediary mould to cast the reconstruction in
a chosen material [87]. If 3D technologies are only occasionally
needed, outsourcing can be more time and cost effective [119].
Alternatively, buying the equipment can be considered in case of
frequent use. A pilot project can provide insights to estimate the
work and costs for the available resources. An example is set by
Echavarria et al. [76], who compares direct versus indirect use of 3D
printed ornamental mouldings with regards to expertise, surface
quality, material, time and costs. These arguments pro 3D techno-
logies, along with some solutions, are presented in Fig. 8.
5.6. Managing and storage of data
Principle 5 of the London Charter prescribes the necessity to
foresee strategies for long-term sustainability of the digital files.
Principle 4 extends this to all of the documentation, whether it
concerns analogue or digital media [2]. Moreover, Principle 7 of
the Seville Principles, on scientific transparency mentions that all
“paradata and metadata should be clear, concise and easily avai-
lable” [3]. In the ICOMOS Principles for the recording of monuments,
L. Acke et al.
Fig. 8. One of the seven mind maps to assist the restorer in decision-making when considering 3D technologies.
groups of buildings and sites [177], guidelines are given regarding
the recording of CH, including the archiving of the stable materials,
in this case stable digital file formats, on which the recording has
been made. In the case studies little mention has been made regar-
ding the archiving or digital preservation of the used digital files.
Hernández-Muñoz et al. [87] uploaded their result to Sketchfab and
Beentjes et al. [72] has anticipated the rapid evolvement of techno-
logy data by moulding the 3D printed reconstructions and casting
it, to preserve the used data in a stable manner. The casts were pla-
ced inside the restored sculpture, along with two CD’s, one with the
treatment report and one with a copy of the 3D models.
Similar to the respondents concerns, Tsiafaki and Michailidou
[178] mention research challenges such as longevity, compatibi-
lity, accessibility, updating and rapid evolvement. The transience
of data is discussed by Koller et al. [174] and briefly by Jeffrey
[173]. Data storage not only includes archiving, but also long-term
curating and this aspect should be considered before starting a
project. Furthermore, Tsiafaki and Michailidou [178] suggest clo-
ser collaboration between IT and archaeologists (and by extension
other CH experts) and the Archaeology Data Service/Digital Anti-
quity has disclosed Guides to Good Practice, including a guide on 3D
models in Archaeology [179] to inform the CH expert on this topic.
Next to the advantages and the importance of digital preservation,
Niven and Richards [180] mention that metadata on the digital files
should include documentation on who made the files, what are
the files and when, where and how they were made. Furthermore,
the Guides to Good Practice includes metadata specifications for
common 3D scanning techniques such as structured light scanning
[181], laser scanning [182] and photogrammetry [183].
In perspective of long-term preservation, the rapid evolvement
of technologies is certainly a cause of concern. However, new tech-
nologies can also mean new opportunities [79,104]. Short term
future perspectives may include improvements in technical spe-
cifications, improvement of 3D printing material stability or novel
printing materials and enabling low-cost and easy-to-use aspects
of the techniques.
Lastly, managing big data files during the process of virtual res-
toration is a common issue. Some practical solutions can be found
in reducing file sizes, by reducing the amount of polygons in the
3D model. A high reduction can be executed for temporary work
files, while a small reduction might be necessary to seek a compro-
mise between workability and minimal impact on the resolution
of the 3D model. Another option is to combine high and low poly
models during the process of digital modelling and reconstruction
[79]. If possible, upgrading your computer to adequate specifica-
tions [68,77,87,110] might be the best solution, taking in account
the tasks that will be performed on the computer.
5.7. Digital vs traditional results
In the documented case studies, 3D technologies were used for
goals such as making more accurate reconstructions [81,94], brin-
ging back the aesthetic harmony or morphology [73,99], improving
previous reconstructions [90,95] or because the authors believe
283
Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288
it to be a more efficient or easier method [68,71,76,83]. These
research goals highlight the authors’ preferences in choosing 3D
technologies over traditional approaches, based upon the avai-
lable resources or personal skills. However, similar to traditional
restoration methodologies, critical evaluation of the results is of
paramount importance, and the final results will depend upon the
skills of the restorer and/or the person responsible for the digital
tasks [114]. Inferior results are therefore not necessarily caused by
the employed methods, but often by a combination of the human
and digital resources involved. It is therefore crucial to have a clear
and mutual understanding of the project and its goal when outsour-
cing the digital tasks. On the other hand, if the virtual restoration
happens in house, it is important to understand the specifications
of the employed materials, equipment and software [119].
A solution to deal with possible inferior results is to apply a
hybrid approach in which traditional techniques are combined with
virtual methods and can as such influence the final result. By for
example incorporating a retouching strategy in the design process,
it is possible to apply a traditional finishing and as such mimic a
traditional approach [85,114]. Similarly to comparing work and
costs involved, a pilot project can be valid for estimating virtual
or hybrid reconstructions [75,76]. In this regard Brown [99] repor-
ted their concerns about 3D scanning a porcelain fountain and the
glaze which would not allow the scanner to capture the subtle-
ties of detailing in the original object. By 3D printing a portion of
the scan, they could visually compare the same original section
on the fountain and noticed no loss of details. Zhang et al. [81]
verified the digitally manufactured reconstruction, next to a tra-
ditional approach, by a couple of experts and non-experts. Virtual
reconstructions also allow for digital simulations, which can pro-
vide insights on improvements of the virtual restoration and after
which a mock-up or draft print can be used to visually evaluate the
reconstruction, before final production [111,120].
6. Conclusion
In order to provide insights on the application of 3D techno-
logies in objects conservation and restoration, a state of the art
was presented on the use of 3D models in conservation and res-
toration work. A survey was set up with the objective to research
the point of view, experience and concerns of the restorer on the
application of 3D technologies in restoration projects. For the prac-
tical application, a literature study was conducted to find all of the
peer and non peer-reviewed literature on how 3D technologies can
assist restoration cases for loss compensation. The survey showed
a positive trend towards 3D technologies; the respondents think
3D technologies can be useful in restoration work and almost half
of the respondents has had experience with either 3D scanning,
digital modelling or digital manufacturing. However, the survey
also pointed out the fact that there are still serious concerns in
the application of 3D technologies. The most common concern is
the uncertainty about the suitability of the 3D printing materials.
The required prior knowledge, the applicability, ethical considera-
tions, required work and costs, managing and storage of data, and
L. Acke et al.
the achieved results are other important points of attention. The
amount of concerns expressed by the respondents show a lack of
familiarity with the many possibilities, and necessities, these tech-
niques offer. Therefore, these aspects were discussed in depth, and
answers or thoughts were provided by means of the case studies
found during the literature study. These aspects were subsequently
presented as arguments pro and con 3D technologies, available in
the form of mind maps. As such, this article aims to assist the resto-
rer in decision-making and gives a framework for educational pur-
poses. Although many arguments were provided, it is important to
bear in mind that this is merely a start to provide full, valid solutions
and these concerns should therefore be the topic of future research.
The amount of case studies found in the literature study show
that successful results can and have been obtained, either through
a complete digital workflow or a more hybrid approach. Future
research and documenting of executed cases are crucial in order
for restorers to get an overview on the potential of 3D technologies
for their own work. Future research of the authors will build on this
article and the collected case studies and it will involve processing
the digital and traditional steps documented in these cases. The goal
is to incorporate this information in a digital toolbox, which can
serve as a comprehensive educational and informative framework
for restorers. Our work hopes to stimulate restorers to document
their methodologies to a wider audience and ultimately make 3D
technologies more available and comprehensible for the restorer.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Research Foundation – Flanders
(FWO) grant number 1SA9519N. The authors are grateful to Willem
for proofreading and to the colleagues of 3.09, for their assistance
in technical knowledge generation.
Appendix: Supplementary data
Supplementary material (appendix A, B and C) related to this
article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.culher.2020.12.003.
Références
[1] ICOM-CC, Terminology for Conservation, ICOM-CC, 2020 (n.d.).
http://www.icom-cc.org/242/about/terminology-for-conservation/
#.XjlKxWhKiUl (accessed February 4, 2020).
[2] The London Charter, The London Charter for the Computer-Based Visuali-
sation of Cultural Heritage, 2009, pp. 1–13 http://www.londoncharter.org/
fileadmin/templates/main/docs/london charter 2 1 en.pdf.
[3] International forum of virtual archaeology, principles of Seville: inter-
national principles of virtual archaeology, Virtual Archaeol. Rev. (2011),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3230678.
[4] L.V. Lopez, Authenticity and realism: virtual vs physical restoration, in:
F. Galeazzi, V. Vassallo (Eds.), P. Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, Authent.
Cult. Herit. Age Digit. Reprod., McDonald Institute Conversations, 2018,
pp. 25–33.
[5] V. Moitinho De Almeide, S. Wefers, O. Murphy, in: A. Bentowska-Kafel, L. Mac-
Donald (Eds.), An Interdisciplinary Discussion of the Terminologies Used in
Cultural Heritage Research, Digit. Tech. Doc. Preserv. Cult. Herit., ARC Huma-
nities Press, 2017, pp. 3–16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/9780857096463.1.79.
[6] S. Hermon, F. Niccolucci, Digital authenticity and the London charter, in: F.
Galeazzi, V. Vassallo (Eds.), P. Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, Authent. Cult.
Herit. Age Digit. Reprod., McDonald Institute Conversations, 2018, pp. 37–47,
http://dx.doi.org/10.17863/CAM.27029.
[7] G. Pavlidis, A. Koutsoudis, F. Arnaoutoglou, V. Tsioukas, C. Chamzas, Methods
for 3D digitization of Cultural Heritage, J. Cult. Herit. 8 (2007) 93–98,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2006.10.007.
[8] W. Boehler, A. Marbs, 3D scanning and photogrammetry for heritage recor-
ding: a comparison, in: Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Geoinformatics, Gavle University
Press, Sweden, 2004, pp. 291–298.
[9] F. Remondino, Heritage recording and 3D modeling with photogram-
metry and 3D scanning, Remote Sens. (Basel) 3 (2011) 1104–1138,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs3061104.
284
Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288
[10] G. Sansoni, M. Trebeschi, F. Docchio, State-of-the-art and applications of 3D
imaging sensors in industry, cultural heritage, medicine, and criminal inves-
tigation, Sensors. 9 (2009) 568–601, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s90100568.
[11] M. Pieraccini, G. Guidi, C. Atzeni, 3D digitizing of cultural heritage, J. Cult.
Herit. 2 (2001) 63–70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1296-2074(01)01108-6.
[12] R. Scopigno, P. Cignoni, N. Pietroni, M. Callieri, M. Dellepiane, Digital fabri-
cation techniques for cultural heritage: a survey, Comput. Graph. Forum 36
(2017) 6–21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12781.
[13] Ballarin Balletti, An application of integrated 3D technologies for repli-
cas in cultural heritage, ISPRS int, J. Geo-Information. 8 (285) (2019),
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8060285.
[14] A. Weigert, A. Dhanda, J. Cano, C. Bayod, S. Fai, M.S. Quintero, A review of
recording technologies for digital fabrication in heritage conservation, in: Int.
Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. XLII-2/W9, 2019, pp. 773–778,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W9-773-2019.
[15] M.J. Wachowiak, B.V. Karas, 3D scanning and replication for museum and
cultural heritage applications, J. Am. Inst. Conserv. 48 (2009) 141–158,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/019713609804516992.
[16] M. Dellepiane, M. Callieri, M. Corsini, R. Scopigno, Using digital 3D models for
study and restoration of cultural heritage artifacts, in: F. Stanco, S. Battiato,
G. Gallo (Eds.), Digit. Imaging Cult. Herit. Preserv. Anal. Restor. Reconstr. Anc.
Artworks, 2017th ed., CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, 2011.
[17] M. Neumüller, A. Reichinger, F. Rist, C. Kern, 3D Printing for Cultural Heri-
tage: Preservation, Accessibility, Research and Education, 2014, pp. 119–134,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44630-0 9.
[18] P. Reischig, J. Blaas, C. Botha, A. Bravin, L. Porra, C. Nemoz, A. Wallert, J. Dik,
A note on medieval microfabrication: the visualization of a prayer nut by
synchrotron-based computer X-ray tomography, J. Synchrotron Radiat. 16
(2009) 310–313, http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0909049508043082.
[19] Materialise, King Tut Revealed through an Accurate 3D Replica, (n.d.).
https://www.materialise.com/en/cases/king-tut-3D-model (accessed
February 4, 2020).
[20] A. Du Plessis, R. Slabbert, L.C. Swanepoel, J. Els, G.J. Booysen, S.
Ikram, I. Cornelius, Three-dimensional model of an ancient Egyp-
tian falcon mummy skeleton, Rapid Prototyp. J. 21 (2015) 368–372,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-09-2013-0089.
[21] A. Boulton, Altered States: henri matisse’S sculpture Aurora, in: AIC Objects
Spec. Gr. Postprints, 2007, pp. 110–129 www.conservation-us.org.
[22] H. de Roos, The digital sculpture project: applying 3D scanning techniques
for the morphological comparison of sculptures, linköping Electron, Artic.
Comput. Inf. Sci. 9 (2004).
[23] M. Dellepiane, M. Callieri, M. Fondersmith, P. Cignoni, R. Scopigno, Using 3D
scanning to analyze a proposal for the attribution of a bronze horse to Leo-
nardo da Vinci, 8th Int, Symp. VAST Int. Symp. Virtual Reality, Archaeol. Cult.
Herit. (2007) 117–124, http://dx.doi.org/10.2312/VAST/VAST07/117-124.
[24] R.L. Abel, S. Parfit, N. Ashton, S.G. Lewis, B. Scott, C. Stringer, Digi-
tal preservation and dissemination of ancient lithic technology
with modern micro-CT, Comput. Graph. (ACM) 35 (2011) 878–884,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2011.03.001.
[25] M. Gherardelli, G. Adembri, R. Balleri, S. Di Tondo, Methods and tools
for the classification and cataloging of antique moulds from the col-
lection of the Richard-Ginori factory, J. Cult. Herit. 15 (2014) 479–489,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2013.11.001.
[26] U.S. Malik, G. Guidi, Massive 3D digitization of sculptures: methodological
approaches for improving efficiency, in: IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., 2018,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/364/1/012015.
[27] A.J.S. Fernández, Diseño De Embalajes Para Objetos Cultu-
rales: Método De Plantillas Por Fotogrametría, 2018, pp. 1–11,
http://dx.doi.org/10.14568/cp2018016.
[28] A.M. Sá, K. Rodriguez Echavarria, M. Griffin, D. Covill, J. Kaminski, D.
Arnold, Parametric 3D-fitted frames for packaging heritage artefacts, 13th
Int, Symp. Virtual Reality, Archaeol. Cult. Herit. VAST. (2012) 105–112,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2312/VAST/VAST12/105-112.
[29] M. Brunetti, M. Callieri, B. Pizzo, C. Montani, P. Pingi, R. Scopigno, Using
3D scanning to monitor wood deformations and to evaluate preserva-
tion strategies, O3A Opt, Arts, Archit. Archaeol. 6618 (2007) 66180E,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.726169.
[30] A.M. Lingle, N. Lercari, Çatalhöyük Digital Preservation Project: Pilot program
in integrated digital monitoring strategies, in: ICOM-CC 18th Trienn, Conf.
Copenhagen (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrd1551.
[31] M. Ballarin, C. Balletti, P. Vernier, Replicas in cultural heritage:
3D printing and the museum experience, Int. Arch. Photogramm.
Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. - ISPRS Arch. 42 (2018) 55–62,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-55-2018.
[32] P.F. Wilson, J. Stott, J.M. Warnett, A. Attridge, M.P. Smith, M.A. Williams, Eva-
luation of touchable 3D-Printed replicas in museums, Curator Museum J. 60
(2017) 445–465, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cura.12244.
[33] A. Reichinger, M. Neumüller, F. Rist, S. Maierhofer, W. Purgathofer, Computer-
aided design of tactile models, Comput. Help. People Spec. Needs (2012)
497–504, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31534-3 73.
[34] D. Pitzalis, P. Cignoni, M. Menu, G. Aitken, 3D enhanced model from multiple
data sources for the analysis of the Cylinder seal of Ibni-Sharrum, VAST 2008,
Int. Symp. Virtual Reality, Archaeol. Cult. Herit. (2008) 79–84.
[35] A. Bašić, M. Mladineo, I. Peko, A. Aljinovic, 3D scanning, CAD optimization
and 3D print application in cultural heritage: an example on statue from the
Ancient Salona, Int. Conf. M̈echanical Technol. Struct. Mater. (2018).
L. Acke et al.
[36] R. Hartmann, The Anne Frank House in Amsterdam: a museum and literary
landscape goes virtual reality, Journal. Mass Commun. 3 (2013) 625–644.
[37] Google Arts & Culture, Versailles: The Palace is Yours, (n.d.).
https://artsandculture.google.com/project/versailles (accessed February
4, 2020).
[38] The British Museum, Museum of the World, (n.d.).
https://britishmuseum.withgoogle.com/ (accessed February 4, 2020).
[39] A. Dajnowski, T. Ross, A.B. Craig, B. Dajnowski, New trends in art conser-
vation, the use of lasers to clean as well as generate an augmented reality
representation of an iconic public monument in bronze: the Alma mater,
Estud. Conserv. E Restauro 60 (2015) S65–S72, http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/
0039363015Z.000000000210.
[40] F. Gherardini, M. Santachiara, F. Leali, 3D Virtual Reconstruction and Augmen-
ted Reality Visualization of Damaged Stone Sculptures, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater.
Sci. Eng. 364 (2018), http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/364/1/012018.
[41] Sketchfab, The British Museum, (n.d.). https://sketchfab.com/britishmuseum
(accessed February 4, 2020).
[42] R. Scopigno, P. Cignoni, M. Callieri, G. Impoco, P. Pingi, F. Ponchio, Using opti-
cally scanned 3D data in the restoration of Michelangelo’s David, Opt. Metrol.
Arts Multimed. 5146 (2003) 44–53, http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.499921.
[43] F.I. Apollonio, M. Ballabeni, S. Bertacchi, F. Fallavollita, R. Foschi, M.
Gaiani, From documentation images to restauration support tools: a path
following the neptune fountain in bologna design process, Int. Arch. Pho-
togramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. - ISPRS Arch. (2017) 329–336,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-Archives-XLII-5-W1-329-2017.
[44] E. Kartaki, The use of computed tomography for creating virtual archives of
conservation condition reports. The case study of a 17th century casket, in:
Proc. 2nd CAA GR Conf., 2016, pp. 105–113.
[45] G. Siedler, S. Vetter, in: M.A. Rogerio-Candelera, M. Lazzari, E. Cano (Eds.),
Modern- Methods of Documentation for Conservation – Digital Mapping and
Automated 3D Object Documentation in Software Metigo ® MAP and Metigo
®
3D, Sci. Technol. Conserv. Cult. Herit. (2-5 Oct 2012), Taylor & Francis Group,
2013.
[46] A. Pamart, F. Ponchio, V. Abergel, M. Corsini, M. Dellepiane, F. Morlet, R. Sco-
pigno, L. De Luca, C. Photogrammeytry, A Complete framework operating
spatially-oriented RTI in a 3D/2D cultural heritage documentation and analy-
sis tool, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. XLII-2/W9 (2019)
573–580.
[47] CNRS-MAP, Aïoli, (2017). http://www.aioli.cloud/ (accessed February 4,
2020).
[48] M.G. Bevilacqua, G. Caroti, Orientation of Archive Images on 3D Digital Models
of Painted Vaults: an Interesting Tool for Restorers, 2018, pp. 385–398.
[49] A. Van der Perre, H. Hameeuw, V. Boschloos, L. Delvaux, M. Proesmans, B.
Vandermeulen, L. Van Gool, L. Watteeuw, in: P.M. Homem (Ed.), Towards a
Combined Use of IR, UV and 3D-Imaging for the Study of Small Inscribed
and Illuminated Artefacts, Light. . . .. Cult. Herit. Museums, Porto, 2016, pp.
163–192.
[50] M. Callieri, P. Cignoni, R. Scopigno, G. Gori, M. Risaliti, Beyond manual
drafting: a restoration-oriented system, J. Cult. Herit. 7 (2006) 214–226,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2006.06.002.
[51] L. Arbace, E. Sonnino, M. Callieri, M. Dellepiane, M. Fabbri, A. Iaccarino Idelson,
R. Scopigno, Innovative uses of 3D digital technologies to assist the resto-
ration of a fragmented terracotta statue, J. Cult. Herit. 14 (2013) 332–345,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2012.06.008.
[52] E. Siotto, M. Dellepiane, M. Callieri, R. Scopigno, C. Gratziu, A. Mos-
cato, L. Burgio, S. Legnaioli, G. Lorenzetti, V. Palleschi, A multidisciplinary
approach for the study and the virtual reconstruction of the ancient
polychromy of Roman sarcophagi, J. Cult. Herit. 16 (2015) 307–314,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2014.05.011.
[53] M. Dellepiane, M. Callieri, E. Paribeni, E. Sorge, N. Sulfaro, V. Maria-
nelli, R. Scopigno, Multiple uses of 3D scanning for the valorization of
an artistic site: the case of luni, 6th eurographics ital, in: Chapter Conf.
2008 - Proc., 2008, pp. 7–13, http://dx.doi.org/10.2312/LocalChapterEvents/
ItalChap/ItalianChapConf2008/007-013.
[54] M. Canciani, C. Falcolini, M. Buonfiglio, S. Pergola, M. Saccone,
B. Mammì, G. Romito, A method for virtual anastylosis: the case
of the arch of Titus At the Circus maximus in Rome, ISPRS ann,
Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. II-5/W1 (2013) 61–66,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprsannals-II-5-W1-61-2013.
[55] M.I. Stamatopoulos, C.N. Anagnostopoulos, Simulation of an Archaeologi-
cal Disaster: Reassembling a Fragmented Amphora Using the Thickness
Profile Method, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (Including Subser. Lect. Notes
Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), 11196 LNCS, 2018, pp. 162–173,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01762-0 14.
[56] D. Tsiafaki, A. Koutsoudis, F. Arnaoutoglou, N. Michailidou, Virtual reassembly
and completion of a fragmentary drinking vessel, Virtual Archaeol. Rev. 7
(2016) 67, http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/var.2016.5910.
[57] S.D. Laycock, G.D. Bell, N. Corps, D.B. Mortimore, G. Cox, S. May, I. Finkel,
Using a combination of micro-computed tomography, CAD and 3D printing
techniques to reconstruct incomplete 19th-century cantonese chess pieces,
J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 7 (2015) 2–7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2629682.
[58] G. Papaioannou, T. Schreck, A. Andreadis, P. Mavridis, R. Gregor, I. Sipiran, K.
Vardis, From reassembly to object completion: a complete systems pipeline,
J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 10 (2017) 1–22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3009905.
285
Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288
[59] F. Di Paola, Digital technologies for virtual recomposition, in: The
Case Study of Serpotta Stuccoes, Xjenza Online, 2015, pp. 63–68,
http://dx.doi.org/10.7423/XJENZA.2015.1.09.
[60] Secretariat ICOM-CC, Personal Communication 26-03-2020, 2020.
[61] I. Alexopoulou, S. Zervos, Paper conservation methods: an
international survey, J. Cult. Herit. 21 (2016) 922–930,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2016.04.001.
[62] J.E. Bartlett, J.W. Kotrlik, C.C. Higgins, Organizational research: determining
appropriate sample size in survey research, Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform. J. 19
(2001) 43–50.
[63] C. Pandya, What Is an Acceptable Response Rate for Online Surveys? 2020,
AppJetty. (n.d.). https://www.appjetty.com/blog/acceptable-response-rate-
for-online-surveys/ (accessed June 29, 2020).
[64] D. Andrews, B. Nonnecke, J. Preece, Conducting Research on
the Internet: Online Survey Design, Development and Imple-
mentation Guidelines Int. J. Hum. Interact. 16 (2003) 185–210,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1602 04.
[65] L. Acke, S. Verwulgen, K. De Vis, J. Verlinden, Compiling a Digital Toolbox: The
Use of 3D Technology for the Restoration of Intricate Artworks, Proc. Recent
Adv. Glas. Ceram. Conserv. 2019 (2019) 211–216.
[66] S. Barack, in: H. Roemich, L. Fair (Eds.), 3D Printing and Fills on Glass Vessels: A
Case Study from the Fraunces Tavern Museum, Proc. Recent Adv. Glas. Ceram.
Conserv., 2016, 2016.
[67] H. Lee, K. Wi, Restoration of earthenware & porcelain cultu-
ral assets using 3D printing, J. Conserv. Sci. 31 (2015) 131–145,
http://dx.doi.org/10.12654/jcs.2015.31.2.06.
[68] K.M. Garland, S. Spence, R.B. North, Loss Compensation on Ceramics Using
Photogrammetry, Digital Modeling and 3D Printing, 2018, pp. 2–3.
[69] M. Mercante, How 3D Printing Brings Antiquities Back to Life, Formlabs
https://formlabs.com/blog/how-3d-printing-brings-antiquities-back-to-life/
%0AThe, 2018 (accessed March 19, 2020).
[70] G. Bigliardi, P. Dioni, G. Panico, G. Michiara, L. Ravasi, M.G. Romano, Restauro
E Innovazione Al Palazzo Ducale Di Mantova: La Stampa 3D Al Servizio Dei
Gonzaga, 2015, pp. 40–45.
[71] A. Braghieri, S. Capetta, D. Cimino, M. Mambrin, V. Moratti, T. Poli, G. Rollo, Uti-
lizzo Della Stampante 3D Per La Ricostruzione Di Parti Mancanti Nel Restauro
Di Due Sculture Lignee, in: Restauro Nell’era Della Fabbr. Digit. Nov 4, 2016,
Parma, Oral Presentation https://fablabparma.org/giornata studio restauro/,
2016.
[72] T. Beentjes, T. Davidowitz, R. van der Molen, in: P. Mardikian, C. Chemello,
C. Watters, P. Hull (Eds.), Treatment of the Damaged Bronze of Rodin’S The
Thinker from the Singer Museum in Laren, the Netherlands: an Innovative
Approach, Met. 2010 Proc. Interim Meet. ICOM-CC Met. Work. Group, Oct.
11-15, 2010, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, 2010, pp. 366–376.
[73] M.L. Seixas, P.S. Assis, J.C.D. Figueiredo, M.A. Pinto, D.G.C. Paula, The use of
rapid prototyping in the joining of fractured historical silver object, Rapid
Prototyp. J. 24 (2018) 532–538, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-09-2016-0148.
[74] L. Festa, A.I. Idelson, C. Serino, F. Vischetti, Il mitra tauroctono di tarquinia:
intervento Di restauro E riassemblaggio con L’uso di technologie 3D, in: XIII
Congr. Naz. IGIIC. Vol. Degli Atti. Cent. Conserv. E Restauro La Venaria R. –
Torino. 22/24 Ottobre 2015, 2015.
[75] A. Alcantud, N. Didier Niquet, M. Azahara Rodriguez Rodriguez, y X. Mas-
Barbera, Optimización y aplicación de prótesis 3D: mediante tecnologías
físico-digitales como solución para la restauración de faltantes en escultura,
Tarea. 5 (2018) 218–233.
[76] K.R. Echavarria, R. Song, D. Few, A. Medeiros, Restoration of architectural orna-
ment for historic buildings, eurographics work, Graph. Digit. Fabr. (2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.2312/gdf.20161077.
[77] D. De Luca, M. Del Giudice, N. Grasso, F. Matrone, A. Osello, M.
Piras, Handheld volumetric scanner for 3D printed integrations
of historical elements: comparison and results, Int. Arch. Photo-
gramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. - ISPRS Arch. (2019) 381–388,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W15-381-2019.
[78] I. Kalasarinis, A. Koutsoudis, Assisting pottery restoration procedures with
digital technologies, Int. J. Comput. Methods Herit. Sci. 3 (2019) 20–32,
http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijcmhs.2019010102.
[79] L. Acke, K. De Vis, T. De Kock, E. Indekeu, J. Van Goethem, S. Van Akeleyen,
M. Cornelis, J. Verlinden, S. Verwulgen, in: M. Ioannides, E. Fink, R. Bru-
mana, P. Patias, A. Doulamis, J. Martins, M. Wallace (Eds.), Treatise of Digital
Reconstruction and Restoration of Lace Porcelain, Springer, Cham, 2018, pp.
15–26, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01762-0 2, Digit. Herit. Prog.
Cult. Herit. Doc. Preserv. Prot. 7th Int. Conf. EuroMed 2018, Oct. 29-November
3, 2018, Nicosia, Cyprus, EuroMed 20.
[80] Web page, 3D Archeo Lab, 4-7 settembre 2014 S. Martino
dall’Argine (MN) - La Rivoluzione dello Spazio, 3D Archeo Lab, 2014.
https://www.digitalmeetsculture.net/article/3d-printing-applied-to-cultural
-heritage/.
[81] F. Zhang, R.I. Campbell, I.J. Graham, Application of additive manu-
facturing to the digital restoration of archaeological artefacts, in:
Procedia Technol. - Int. Des. Technol. Conf. DesTech2015, 29th June
– 1st July 2015, Geelong, Aust., Elsevier B.V., 2015, pp. 249–257,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijrapidm.2016.078747.
[82] P. Zhou, W. Shui, L. Qu, F. Gao, Z. Wu, Case study: missing data computation
and 3D printing application in symmetrical artifact restoration, in: Proc. -
L. Acke et al.
VRCAI 2016 15th ACM SIGGRAPH Conf. Virtual-reality Contin. Its Appl. Ind.,
2016, pp. 63–66, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3014027.3014032.
[83] M. Anderson, K. Lovell, 3D Printing at Yale: Museum Exhibitions, Yale News
https://news.yale.edu/videos/3d-printing-yale-museum-exhibitions?page=20,
2014.
[84] J. Ferello, Edg Creates Customizable 3D-printed Concrete Molds, Archit.
Newsp, 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2009.09.004.
[85] J. Hayes, S. Fai, S. Kretz, C. Ouimet, P. White, Digitally-assisted stone car-
ving of a relief sculpture for the parliament buildings national historic site of
Canada, ISPRS Ann, Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2 (2015) 97–103,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprsannals-II-5-W3-97-2015.
[86] Ó. Hernández-Muñoz, A. Sánchez-Ortiz, Digitization and 3D printing
for the reconstruction of volumetric losses in an anatomical wax
model of the 18th century, Conserv. Património. 30 (2019) 59–72,
http://dx.doi.org/10.14568/cp2018003.
[87] Ó. Hernández-Muñoz, M.A. Sánchez Ortiz, P. Matía Martín, Ani-
mal anatomy. Digital techniques for the sculptural reconstruction
of the original appearance of a wax model of the 19th century,
Interv. Rev. Int. Conserv. Restauración y Museol. 10 (2019) 64–76,
http://dx.doi.org/10.30763/intervencion.2019.19.209.
[88] Learning Sites, Nuzi (modern Yorghan Tepe, Iraq) Photomo-
deling, 3D Printing & CNC Carving, Learn. Sites, Inc., 2013
http://www.learningsites.com/Nuzi/Nuzi home.php.
[89] Sismaitalia, 3D Printen Voor Gebouwrestauratie: Nieuwe Markt?,
3D Print Mag., 2018 https://3dprintmagazine.eu/3d-printen-voor-
gebouwrestauratie-nieuwe-markt/ (accessed March 19, 2020).
[90] K. Antlej, K. Celec, M. Sinani, E. Mirtic, D. Ljubic, Restoration of a stemmed
fruit bowl using 3D technologies, in: Rev. Natl. Cent. Digit. SEEDI Commun.
14. Proc. Sixth SEEDI Conf. Digit. Cult. Sci. Heritage., 2012, pp. 141–146.
[91] D. Archeo Lab, M.G. Romana, Restauro in Stampa 3D Della Statua Di
Cornelio Nepote a Ostiglia (MN), 3D Archeo Lab https://www.3d-
archeolab.it/portfolio-items/restauro-in-stampa-3d-della-statua-di-
cornelio-nepote-ostiglia-mantova/?portfolioCats=461, 2017.
[92] R.C. Bates, Restoration of an Artist’s Cast-Iron Loft Building in SoHo in New
York City, APT Bull, J. Preserv. Technol. 44 (2013) 39–43.
[93] Z. Allen, The Conservation of Marie Antoinette’s Chair,
Victoria & Albert Museum http://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/
conservation-blog/the-conservation-of-marie-antoinettes-chair, 2015
(accessed March 19, 2020).
[94] C. Cricchio, The Restoration of the Panel Painting Depicting the Ado-
ration of Shepherds With a Saint Bishop, CeROArt, 2017, pp. 1–16,
http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/ceroart.5224.
[95] C. Damassa, Restauro Nella Chiesa Del Gesù a Roma Con La Scansione Di Artec
3D, 3DZ https://www.3dz.it/restauro-gesu-roma-scansione-stampa-3d/,
2018.
[96] C. Díaz-Marín, E. Aura-Castro, Creación de implantes 3D en procesos de
conservación y restauración de vidrio arqueológico, Virtual Archaeol. Rev.
8 (2017) 103, http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/var.2017.5946.
[97] A. Braghieri, S. Capetta, D. Cimino, M. Mambrin, V. Moratti, T. Poli, G. Rollo,
Utilizzo Della Stampante 3D Per La Ricostruzione Di Parti Mancanti Nel Res-
tauro Di Due Sculture Lignee, in: Restauro Nell’era Della Fabbr. Digit. Nov 4,
2016, Parma, Oral Presentation, 2016.
[98] M. Fantini, F. De Crescenzio, F. Persiani, S. Benazzi, G. Gruppioni, 3D restitu-
tion, restoration and prototyping of a medieval damaged skull, Rapid Proto-
typ. J. 14 (2008) 318–324, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552540810907992.
[99] S. Brown, The Meissen Fountain Project: restoration in the age of digital repro-
duction, Mak. Futur. J. 3 (2014).
[100] S. Hawotte, L’Impression 3D Au Service Du Traitement De Restauration d’une
Tulipière En Faïence De Delft, BRK-APROA Bull, 2014, pp. 15–19.
[101] G. Fatuzzo, G. Mussumeci, S.M. Oliveri, G. Sequenzia, The “Guerriero
di Castiglione”: reconstructing missing elements with integrated non-
destructive 3D modelling techniques, J. Archaeol. Sci. 38 (2011) 3533–3540,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.08.016.
[102] M. Jörg, 3D Als Chance – Erste Ergebnisse Im Theatiner-projekt, Denkmalpfl.
Informationen, 2014.
[103] F. Di Paola, G. Milazzo, F. Spatafora, Computer aided restoration tools to assist
the conservation of an ancient sculpture. the colossal statue of zeus enthro-
ned, in: Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. - ISPRS Arch., 2017,
pp. 177–184, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W5-177-2017.
[104] Y.H. Jo, S. Hong, Application of three-dimensional scanning, haptic modeling,
and printing technologies for restoring damaged artifacts, J. Conserv. Sci. 35
(2019) 71–80, http://dx.doi.org/10.12654/jcs.2019.35.1.08.
[105] S. Fragkos, E. Tzimtzimis, D. Tzetzis, O. Dodun, P. Kyratsis, 3D laser scan-
ning and digital restoration of an archaeological find MATEC Web Conf.
22nd Int. Conf. Innov. Manuf. Eng. Energy - IManE&E 2018, 178, 2018,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201817803013.
[106] N.R. Larkin, L.B. Porro, Three legs good, four legs better: making a
quagga whole again with 3D printing, Collect. Forum. 30 (2016) 73–84,
http://dx.doi.org/10.14351/0831-4985-30.1.73.
[107] H. Lee, K. Wi, Restoration of a White Porcelain Pitcher using
3D printing, Conserv. Sci. Museum. 16 (2015) 122–137,
http://dx.doi.org/10.22790/conservation.2015.16.0122.
[108] G. Quantanilla, Restoring an Ancient Roman Mask, 3D Hubs
https://www.3dhubs.com/talk/t/restoring-an-ancient-roman-mask/2261,
2015.
286
Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288
[109] L. Sciamanna, Stampante 3D E Restauro: Un Caso Studio, Lucio
sciamanna Elettron. E Didatt. http://www.sciamannalucio.it/
stampante-3d-restauro-un-caso-studio/, 2020.
[110] N.D. Niquet, M. Sánchez-López, X. Mas-Barberà, Development of reversible
intelligent prosthesis for the conservation of sculptures, A case study, J. Cult.
Herit. (2020), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.12.010.
[111] S. Hong, Y.H. Jo, Y. Mi Kwon, S.Y. Jo, Restoration of the damaged
korean Stone seated bodhisattva sculpture using Three-dimensional vir-
tual modeling and printing technologies, in: Proc. 2018 3rd Digit.
Herit. Int. Congr. Digit. Herit. 2018 - Held Jointly With 2018 24th
Int. Conf. Virtual Syst. Multimedia, VSMM 2018, IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–3,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2018.8809999.
[112] Unocad, Integrazione reversibile sulla danzatrice con i cembali di
Antonio Canova, Unocad. (n.d.). https://www.unocad.it/cms/index.php/
storie-di-successo/integrazione-danzatrice-con-i-cembali (accessed March
19, 2020).
[113] M.J. Park, H.S. Hwang, S.Y. Hong, A Study on the Restoration of
Chimi Excavated the Wangheungsa Temple Site using 3D Scanning
and Computer Numerical Control, J. Conserv. Sci. 35 (2019) 217–225,
http://dx.doi.org/10.12654/jcs.2019.35.3.04.
[114] M.C. Laurenti, A.I. Idelson, 3D modeling and printing techniques used to res-
tore Palmyra busts destroyed by ISIS: an overview on Italian methods and
approach, in: Oral Present. Sav. Syrian Cult. Herit. Next Gener. Palmyr. A
Messag. from Nara, 11-14 July 2017, 2017.
[115] A. Lima, M. Garcia, S. Coentro, I. Coutinho, C. Carvalho, J.M.P. Coelho, T.
Almeida, C. Carvalho, Conservation and Restoration of Glass in the 21st Cen-
tury: Filling Gaps Using a 3D Printer, Poster Present. Glas. 11 - Glas. Sci. Art
Conserv. Bronnbach Monast. 10th to 12th May 2011, 2011.
[116] J. Xu, L. Ding, P.E.D. Love, Digital reproduction of historical building ornamen-
tal components: from 3D scanning to 3D printing, Autom. Constr. 76 (2017)
85–96, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.01.010.
[117] J.L.V. Nogueira, E. Moreira, F.D.S. Barros, R.C.C. Vieira, L.E. Amorim, Uso Da
Fabricação Digital Nos Processos De Restauração : O Retábulo Do Altar Da
Igreja Matriz De Nossa Senhora Do Rosário De Russas, in: Proc. 3◦ Simpósio
Científico Do ICOMOS Bras. 8 - 10 May 2019, 2019.
[118] G. Sansoni, F. Docchio, M. Trebeschi, S. Filippi, B. Motyl, Virtual and rapid pro-
totyping by means of 3D optical acquisition and CAD modeling: application
to cultural heritage and to the automotive domain, in: Virtual Model. Rapid
Manuf. - Adv. Res. Virtual Rapid Prototyp., 2005, pp. 251–257.
[119] S.M. Smith, L. Petitt, Conservation Treatment of Malvina Hoffman’s Bushman
Family, Kalahari Desert, South Africa (1930) Using 3D Technology, in: Met.
2016 Proc. Interim Meet. ICOM-CC Met. Work. Group, Sept. 26-30, 2016, New
Delhi, India, 2016, pp. 1–8.
[120] J.M. Yeo, Y. Hoon Jo, Y.T. Kim, Y. Woon Lee, Applying virtual res-
toration modeling and Sand printing of weathered rampart Stone
based on Three-dimensional scanning, in: proc. 2018 3rd digit. Herit.
Int. Congr. digit. Herit, in: 2018 - Held Jointly With 2018 24th
Int. Conf. Virtual Syst. Multimedia, VSMM 2018, IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–3,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2018.8810047.
[121] S. Hawotte, L’ impression 3D au service du traitement de conservation- res-
tauration d’une cruche en terre cuite gallo-romaine, CeROArt (Online), EGG 5
(2016) 1–15 http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/4865.
[122] J.-B. Barreau, T. Nicolas, G. Bruniaux, E. Petit, Q. Petit, Y. Bernard, R. Gaugne,
V. Gouranton, Ceramics fragments digitization by photogrammetry, recons-
tructions and applications, in: Int. Conf. Cult. Herit. (EuroMed), Prepr.
ArXiv1412.1330., 2014 http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1330.
[123] C. Beltrami, D. Cavezzali, F. Chiabrando, A. Iaccarino Idelson, G.
Patrucco, F. Rinaudo, 3D digital and physical reconstruction of a col-
lapsed dome using sfm techniques from historical images, in: ISPRS
Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci., 2019, pp. 217–224,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-Archives-XLII-2-W11-217-2019.
[124] I. Idelson, S. Pannuzi, A. Brunetto, G. Galanti, C. Giovannone, V. Massa,
C. Serino, F. Vischetti, Use of 3D technologies within the conservation of
the ancient windows of the basilica of s. Sabina In Rome. Construction of
exhibition stands In carbon composite on a milled structure., In: Int. Arch.
Photogramm, in: Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. - ISPRS Arch., 2017, pp. 593–598,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-Archives-XLII-5-W1-593-2017.
[125] L. Speranza, S. Afra, in: E. Hamilton, K. Dodson (Eds.), The Gap Between Ethics
and Aesthetics in Italian Restoration: Experiences in the Laboratories of the
Opificio Delle Pietre Dure in Florence - Della Robbia Sculpture Case Studies,
Vol. 24, AIC Objects Spec. Gr. Postprints, 2017, pp. 91–114, 2017.
[126] S. Lo Presti, F. Di Paola, S. Mineo, Artificial stone in architec-
ture: new techniques, Conserv. Sci. Cult. Herit. 11 (2011) 195–217
https://conservation-science.unibo.it/article/view/2698/2097.
[127] Pde A. Varela, J.P. Sousa, Digital flow in Stone heritage buildings: the nasoni
keystobe experiment, in: Proc. 33rd ECAADe Conf., 2015, pp. 717–726.
[128] R. Rivola, C. Castagnetti, E. Bertacchini, Le tecniche geomatiche a supporto dei
beni Culturali digitalizzazione e stampa 3d di un mosaico a tecnica bizantina
a scopo documentativo e conservativo, Archeomatica (2016) 34–37.
[129] E. Moreira, R. Vieira, M. Xavier, D. Cardoso, J. Nogueira, in: G.
Celani, O. Kanoun (Eds.), Documentation and Digital Fabrica-
tion Methods for Restoration of Eclectic Metal Ornaments, 2017,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110537680-013, Front. Sci. Technol. -
Autom. Sustain. Digit. Fabr. - Sel. Ext. Pap. 7th Brazilian-German Conf.
Campinas 2016 Brazil.
L. Acke et al.
[130] M. Bici, R. Guachi, O. Colacicchi, G. D’Ercoli, F. Campana, in: F. Cavas-
Martinez, B. Eynard, F.J. Fernandez Canavate, D.G. Fernandez-Pacheco, P.
Morer, V. Nigrelli (Eds.), Posture Evaluation for Fragment Re-Alignment
of Ancient Bronze Statues: The Case Study of the Principe Ellenistico,
2018, pp. 323–335, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12346-8 32, Adv.
Mech. Des. Eng. Manuf. II Proc. Int. Jt. Conf. Mech. Des. Eng. Adv. Manuf.
(JCM 2018).
[131] J.P. Brown, R.D. Martin, restoration By other means: CT scanning and 3D com-
puter modeling for the Re-restoration of a previously restored skull from the
magdalenian era, in: Objects Spec. Gr. Postprints, 2014, pp. 81–101.
[132] G. Tucci, V. Bonora, A. Conti, L. Fiorini, High-quality 3D models and
their use in a cultural heritage conservation project, in: Int. Arch. Pho-
togramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. - ISPRS Arch., 2017, pp. 687–693,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W5-687-2017.
[133] J. Kmosek, M. Leroux, Restoration of an Archaeological Iron object Using 3D
Technology: a Case Study, in: Met. 2016 Proc. Interim Meet. ICOM-CC Met,
Work. Group, New Delhi, India, 2016, Sept. 26-30, 2016.
[134] A. Zoran, L. Buechley, Hybrid reassemblage: an exploration of craft, digital
fabrication and artifact uniqueness, Leonardo. 46 (2013) 4–10.
[135] N. Lamb, S. Banerjee, N.K. Banerjee, in: S.N. Spencer (Ed.), Automated Recons-
truction of Smoothly Joining 3D Printed Restorations to Fix Broken Objects,
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, U.S., 2019, pp. 1–12,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3328939.3329005, SCF’ 19 Proc. 2nd ACM Symp.
Comput. Fabr.
[136] S. Bahrampoor, A.-H. Karimy, Using three dimensional printer for recons-
truction of historic glass objects, Maremat Me’mari-e Iran 1 (2016) 115–126
http://mmi.aui.ac.ir/article-1-376-en.html (accessed March 23, 2020).
[137] Y. Yang, 3D printing technology in the application of ceramic restoration and
replication, Wen Wu Bao Hu Yu Kao Gu Ke Xue. 27 (2015) 110–113.
[138] H. Shu, Application of 3D reconstruction and 3D printing in the repair of the
terracotta army, Electron. Sci. Technol. (2017) 4–7.
[139] ASTM International, ISO / ASTM52900-52915 Standard Terminology
for Additive Manufacturing – General Principles – Terminology, 2015,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/F2792-12A.
[140] Web page, 3D hubs, What is 3D printing? The definitive guide, 3D Hubs. (n.d.).
https://www.3dhubs.com/guides/3d-printing/ (accessed June 16, 2020).
[141] I. Pamer, Anwendungsmöglichkeiten des fused deposition modeling (FDM)
3D-druckverfahrens in der restaurierung, in: Hochschule Für Technik Und
Wirtschaft Berlin, 2015.
[142] X. Aure-Calvet, The Application of 2.5D and 3D Technologies for the Conserva-
tion and Presentation of Surface Texture in Paintings, University of the West
of England, 2019.
[143] American Institute for Conservation, Oddy Tests: Materials Databases, 2019
https://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Oddy Tests: Materials Databases
#Tables (accessed February 7, 2020).
[144] D. Cimino, G. Rollo, M. Zanetti, P. Bracco, 3d printing technologies: are their
materials safe for conservation treatments? IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 364
(2018), http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/364/1/012029.
[145] D. Cimino, Characterization of Polymeric 3D Printing Filaments for Applica-
tion in the Conservation Field, Università degli Studio di Torino, 2016.
[146] R. Khunti, The problem with printing Palmyra: exploring the ethics of using
3D printing technology to reconstruct heritage, Stud. Digit. Herit. 2 (2018)
1–12, http://dx.doi.org/10.14434/sdh.v2i1.24590.
[147] P. Cain, The impact of layer height on a 3D print, 3D Hubs. (n.d.).
https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/impact-layer-height-3d-print/
#when (accessed July 31, 2020).
[148] D Hubs, Post Processing & Finishing | 3D Hubs, 3D Hubs. (n.d.).
https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/collection/post-processing-
finishing/ (accessed June 24, 2020).
[149] D Hubs, Post processing for FDM printed parts, 3D Hubs. (n.d.).
https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/post-processing-fdm-printed-
parts/#weld (accessed June 24, 2020).
[150] Materialise, Stereolithography - 3D Printing at Materialise, Materialise. (n.d.).
https://www.materialise.com/en/manufacturing/3d-printing-technology/
stereolithography (accessed June 30, 2020).
[151] S. Wefers, A. Karmacharya, M. Pfarr-Harfst, F. Boochs, Digital 3D reconstructed
models: a proposition for structuring visualisation workflows using seman-
tic technologies for recommendations, Stud. Digit. Herit. 1 (2017) 537–546,
http://dx.doi.org/10.14434/sdh.v1i2.23327.
[152] K. Antlej, M. Eric, M. Savnik, B. Zupanek, J. Slade, B. Battestin, Combining
3D technologies in the field of cultural heritage: three case studies, 12th
int. Symp, in: Virtual Reality, Archaeol. Cult. Herit. VAST, 2011, pp. 1–4,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2312/PE/VAST/VAST11S/001-004.
[153] E. Athanasiou, M. Faka, S. Hermon, V. Vassallo, K. Yiakoupi, 3D Documentation
Pipeline of Cultural Heritage Artifacts: a Cross-disciplinary Implementation,
Proc. Digit. 2013 - Fed. 19th Int’l VSMM, 10th Eurographics GCH, 2nd UNESCO
Mem. World Conf. Plus Spec. Sess. FromCAA, Arqueol. 2.0 Al. 1, 2013, pp.
145–152, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6743724.
[154] A. Mathys, J. Brecko, P. Semal, Comparing 3D Digitizing Techno-
logies: What Are the Differences?, Proc. Digit. 2013 - Fed. 19th
Int’l VSMM, 10th Eurographics GCH, 2nd UNESCO Mem. World Conf.
Plus Spec. Sess. FromCAA, Arqueol. 2.0 Al. 1, 2013, pp. 201–204,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6743733.
287
Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288
[155] A. Mathys, J. Brecko, D. Van den Spiegel, P. Semal, 3D And Challenging
Materials: Guidelines for Different 3D Digitisation Methods for Museum Col-
lections With Varying Material Optical Properties, in: 2015 Digit. Herit., 2015,
pp. 19–26, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2015.7413827.
[156] F. Remondino, A. Rizzi, Reality-based 3D documentation of natural and cultu-
ral heritage sites-techniques, problems, and examples Appl. Geomatics. 2
(2010) 85–100, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12518-010-0025-x.
[157] E.U.L.A.C. Museums, Deliverables - Manual on Creating 3D Objects
for Community Museum Use, EULAC Museums, 2020 (n.d.).
https://eulacmuseums.net/index.php/partnership-2/detail-3/detail-4
(accessed June 16, 2020).
[158] D. ICONS, Guidelines and Case Studies, 2014, pp. 1–59
http://3dicons-project.eu/guidelines-and-case-studies/guidelines (accessed
June 26, 2020).
[159] Artec3D, Professional 3D Scanning Solutions Offices, 2019
https://www.artec3d.com/files/pdf/ArtecScanners-Booklet-EURO.pdf.
[160] M. Hou, S. Yang, Y. Hu, Y. Wu, L. Jiang, S. Zhao, P. Wei, Novel method for
virtual restoration of cultural relics with complex geometric structure based
on multiscale spatial geometry, ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Information. 7 (2018) 1–20,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7090353.
[161] S. Setty, U. Mudenagudi, Region of interest-based 3D inpainting of
cultural heritage artifacts, J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 11 (2018) 1–21,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3131778.
[162] Web page, 3D hubs, CAD & File Preparation, 3D Hubs. (n.d.).
https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/collection/cad-file-preparation/
(accessed June 25, 2020).
[163] ICOM-CC, Definition of Profession 1984, 1984 http://www.icom-cc.org/47/
about/definition-of-profession-1984/#.XjlND2hKiUn (accessed February 4,
2020).
[164] W. Elkhuizen, T. Essers, Y. Song, J. Geraedts, C. Weijkamp, J. Dik, S.
Pont, Gloss, color, and topography scanning for reproducing a Pain-
ting’s appearance using 3D printing, J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 12 (2019),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3317949.
[165] T.P. Kersten, D. Omelanowsky, M. Lindstaedt, Investigations of Low-cost
Systems for 3D Reconstruction of Small Objects, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.
(Including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), 10058
LNCS, 2016, pp. 521–532, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48496-9 41.
[166] ICOMOS, International Charter for the Conservation and Resto-
ration of Monuments and Sites (the Venice Charter 1964), 1964
https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice e.pdf (accessed January 15,
2019).
[167] E.C.C.O., Professional Guidelines (II): Code of Ethics http://www.ecco-eu.org/
fileadmin/user upload/ECCO professional guidelines II.pdf, 2003.
[168] AIC, Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice, 1994.
[169] ICOMOS, Approaches to the Conservation of Twentieth-century Cultural Heri-
tage Madrid – New Delhi Document, 2017.
[170] ICOMOS, in: U. Schädler-Saub, B. Szmygin (Eds.), Conservation Ethics Today:
Are Our Conservation-Restoration Theories and Practice Ready for the 21st
Century?, International Scientific Committee on Theory and Philisphy of
Conservation and Restoration, 2019.
[171] ICOMOS, The Nara Document on Authenticity
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/events/documents/event-833-3.pdf, 1994.
[172] P. Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, F. Galeazzi, V. Vassallo, Authenticity and
Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions, McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research, 2018.
[173] S. Jeffrey, Digital heritage objects, authorship, ownership and enga-
gement, in: F. Galeazzi, V. Vassallo (Eds.), P. Di Giuseppantonio Di
Franco, Authent. Cult. Herit. Age Digit. Reprod., 2018, pp. 49–56
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/279665.
[174] D. Koller, B. Frischer, G. Humphreys, Research challenges for digital archives
of 3D cultural heritage models, J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2 (2009) 1–17,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1658346.1658347.
[175] All3DP, Is PLA Biodegradable? – the Truth, All3DP, 2020 (n.d.).
https://all3dp.com/2/is-pla-biodegradable-what-you-really-need-to-know/
(accessed June 25, 2020).
[176] Sustainability in Conservation, Sustainability in Conservation, Sustain.
Conserv, 2020 (n.d.). https://www.sustainabilityinconservation.com/ (acces-
sed June 25, 2020).
[177] ICOMOS, Principles for the Recording of Monuments, groups of buildings and
sites, 1996.
[178] D. Tsiafaki, N. Michailidou, Benefits and Problems Through the
Application of 3D Technologies in Archaeology: Recording, Visuali-
sation, Representation and Reconstruction, Sci. Cult. 1 (2015) 37–45,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18448.
[179] M. Trognitz, K. Niven, V. Gilissen, Guides to Good Practice: 3D Models
in Archaeology, 2020, Archaeol. Data Serv. / Digit. Antiq. - Guid. to
Good Pract. (n.d.). https://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/3d Toc
(accessed June 26, 2020).
[180] K. Niven, J.D. Richards, The Storage and Long-Term Preservation of 3D Data,
Elsevier Inc., 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804602-9.00013-8.
[181] D. Errickson, T. Thompson, B. Rankin, An Optimum Guide for the
Reduction of Noise Using a Surface Scanner for Digitising Human
Osteological Remains, Archaeol https://guides.archaeologydataservice.
ac.uk/g2gp/CS StructuredLight, 2015.
L. Acke et al. Journal of Cultural Heritage 49 (2021) 272–288

[182] A. Payne, Laser Scanning for Archaeology: A Guide to Good Prac- [183] A. Barnes, Close-Range Photogrammetry: A Guide to Good Practice
tice https://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/LaserScan Toc, 2011 https://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/Photogram Toc, 2011
(accessed July 27, 2020). (accessed July 27, 2020).

288