Digital Surface Documentation and Accessible Replication of Everyday Heritage: Integrating Surface Characterization, Additive Manufacturing, and XR Technologies

Highlights

What are the main findings?

• 3D scanning captures degradation for conservation and replication
• AM enables accurate and tactile-ready heritage replicas
• XR complements physical access through immersive interpretation
• Inclusive design improves access for visually impaired users

What are the implications of the main findings?

• Supports conservation with non-destructive, data-driven methods
• Expands heritage access beyond visual-only engagement
• Enables tactile learning in museums and education
• Bridges surface science with digital and manufacturing tools
• Informs inclusive and sustainable heritage practices.

Abstract

Everyday heritage objects are often overlooked despite their cultural significance and vulnerability to surface degradation caused by environmental exposure, material ageing, and human interaction. This review examines how surface characterization, digital documentation, additive manufacturing, and extended reality (XR) technologies can be integrated to support the conservation, replication, and inclusive dissemination of such assets. The study synthesizes recent advances in non-destructive surface analysis methods, including spectroscopic and imaging techniques, alongside 3D scanning approaches capable of capturing both geometry and surface condition. These data are linked to additive manufacturing workflows for producing accurate and durable replicas, with particular attention to surface fidelity and material selection. The review further explores how tactile replicas and multimodal interpretation strategies can enhance accessibility for visually impaired users, addressing limitations of visually dominant heritage practices. XR technologies are discussed as complementary tools for interpretation and remote access. The findings highlight that combining surface-focused conservation with digital and fabrication technologies enables more resilient, accessible, and sustainable heritage management. Future research should focus on standardizing inclusive design approaches and improving the integration of surface data into digital and physical reproduction pipelines.

1. Introduction

Everyday heritage comprises objects, materials, spaces, and practices associated with ordinary life, including domestic artefacts, tools, educational objects, small-scale urban elements, and items connected with local or community memory [1,2]. Although these assets may lack the monumental character traditionally associated with cultural heritage, they provide valuable evidence of social practices, technological habits, material culture, and lived experience. Their conservation and interpretation are therefore important not only for historical documentation, but also for education, public engagement, and the preservation of collective identity [3,4,5].

A central challenge in the preservation of everyday heritage is the progressive alteration of material surfaces. Surface degradation may result from mechanical wear, environmental exposure, pollution, humidity fluctuations, salt crystallization, corrosion, biological growth, or inappropriate handling [6]. These processes affect the visible, tactile, and structural properties of heritage objects and may compromise both their physical stability and their interpretative value [7]. For this reason, surface characterization has become an essential component of cultural heritage research, particularly through non-destructive or minimally invasive methods such as Raman spectroscopy, X-ray fluorescence, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, hyperspectral imaging, optical microscopy, and surface profilometry [8,9].

Conventional conservation approaches remain fundamental, especially when direct stabilization, cleaning, consolidation, or protective treatment of original materials is required [10]. However, their application to everyday heritage is not always straightforward. Many such objects are dispersed, poorly documented, stored outside specialized collections, or considered of secondary importance compared with monumental or high-value artefacts. In addition, conservation interventions may require significant financial resources, technical expertise, and long-term maintenance planning [11]. These limitations highlight the need for complementary approaches that can document, analyze, reproduce, and disseminate heritage objects without increasing the risk of damage to the originals.

Digital documentation technologies have therefore become increasingly relevant in cultural heritage practice [12,13]. Three-dimensional scanning, structured-light scanning, laser scanning, and photogrammetry allow the creation of accurate digital representations of objects and surfaces, supporting documentation, condition assessment, digital archiving, and monitoring over time [14]. When combined with surface characterization data, these methods can provide a more complete understanding of both the geometry and material condition of heritage assets. This integration is particularly important for objects whose significance is closely linked to surface features, such as inscriptions, tool marks, decorative layers, patina, wear traces, or evidence of use.

The value of digital documentation is further expanded when it is connected with additive manufacturing and extended reality technologies. Additive manufacturing enables the production of physical replicas that can support conservation, education, exhibition design, and outreach activities, while reducing the need for repeated handling of original objects [15]. At the same time, extended reality technologies, including virtual and augmented reality, provide additional possibilities for interpretation, remote access, and interactive learning [16,17]. These tools do not replace conservation practice; rather, they extend its impact by linking documentation, preservation, communication, and user engagement.

An important issue that remains insufficiently addressed in many heritage contexts is accessibility. Cultural heritage interpretation continues to rely heavily on visual engagement, which can limit the participation of visually impaired users and other audiences who benefit from multisensory forms of learning [18]. In this regard, the production of tactile replicas from digitally documented objects represents a meaningful contribution to inclusive heritage practice. Three-dimensional printed replicas, when appropriately designed, can allow users to explore form, scale, texture, and surface features through touch, while complementary tools such as Braille labels, audio descriptions, QR codes, and augmented reality interfaces can further support interpretation [19].

Within this context, the present review aims to examine the integration of surface characterization, digital documentation, additive manufacturing, and extended reality technologies in the study and dissemination of everyday heritage. The discussion follows a structured approach, beginning with surface degradation processes and analytical methods, and progressing to digital capture techniques that enable the recording of geometry and surface condition. Particular attention is given to the translation of these data into physical replicas through additive manufacturing, with emphasis on surface fidelity and material considerations. Finally, the review addresses issues of accessibility and inclusive interpretation, focusing on tactile heritage and the use of multisensory approaches to support visually impaired users. By linking surface analysis to digital and physical reproduction workflows, the paper aims to highlight potential courses toward more accessible and sustainable heritage practices.

The central argument of this review is that surface characterization, digital documentation, additive manufacturing, XR technologies, and accessibility should not be treated as independent or sequentially disconnected topics. Instead, they can be understood as parts of a single surface-informed heritage workflow. In this workflow, surface characterization identifies material composition, degradation phenomena, treatment needs, and surface features of interpretative value. Digital documentation then records these features through 3D capture, imaging, metadata, and archiving, creating structured digital assets that contain both geometric and material information. Additive manufacturing translates selected aspects of these digital records into physical replicas, where decisions concerning scale, surface fidelity, material choice, and post-processing are informed by both conservation requirements and user needs. XR technologies provide an additional interpretative layer, enabling contextualization, remote access, and multimodal explanation. Finally, accessibility considerations, particularly for visually impaired users, influence how replicas and XR tools are designed, tested, and used. The review therefore follows the logic: surface analysis → digital capture → surface-informed replication → XR-supported interpretation → inclusive access. This framework is used throughout the manuscript to connect the technical, conservation-oriented, and social dimensions of everyday heritage.

Review Scope and Approach

This work is structured as a critical narrative review rather than a systematic review or meta-analysis. Its purpose is not to quantify publication trends or exhaustively assess all available studies through a PRISMA-type protocol, but to synthesize interconnected developments across surface characterization, conservation treatments, digital documentation, additive manufacturing, extended reality, and inclusive heritage access. This approach was considered appropriate because the topic spans several technical and interpretative domains, where a strictly systematic protocol could limit the broader conceptual integration required for the present review.

The literature was selected through targeted searches in major academic databases and publisher platforms, including Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, MDPI, Taylor & Francis, and relevant cultural heritage and conservation journals. The search strategy combined keyword groups related to: (i) everyday heritage and cultural heritage conservation; (ii) surface degradation, coatings, protective treatments, consolidants, nanocoatings, and anti-corrosion strategies; (iii) non-destructive characterization techniques, including Raman spectroscopy, XRF, FTIR, microscopy, profilometry, and hyperspectral imaging; (iv) 3D scanning, photogrammetry, digital documentation, and digital twins; (v) additive manufacturing, 3D-printed replicas, tactile models, and heritage replication; and (vi) XR technologies, accessibility, visually impaired users, multisensory interpretation, and inclusive museum practice.

Priority was given to peer-reviewed journal articles, review papers, and case-based studies published mainly from 2022 onward, in order to reflect recent developments in surface science, digital heritage, additive manufacturing, XR technologies, and accessibility-oriented heritage practice. Earlier publications were included selectively when they provided foundational concepts, widely accepted definitions, or methodological background directly relevant to the review. Studies were included when they addressed at least one of the following aspects: heritage surface analysis or treatment; documentation of material condition; digital capture or archiving of heritage objects; fabrication of physical replicas; tactile or multisensory interpretation; or inclusive access for visually impaired users. Studies were excluded when they referred to digital fabrication, XR, or surface engineering without a clear connection to cultural heritage, conservation, accessibility, or heritage interpretation.

Given the interdisciplinary nature of the topic, the review did not aim to produce a statistically exhaustive mapping of the literature. Instead, selected sources were critically interpreted in relation to the central argument of the paper: that surface condition should inform not only conservation decisions, but also digital documentation, replica design, XR-based interpretation, and inclusive access. This methodological framing allows the review to connect surface science with digital and physical dissemination workflows, while acknowledging the need for further systematic and user-centered studies in future research.

2. Everyday Heritage, Surface Degradation and Conservation Needs

Everyday heritage objects are subject to continuous material change due to their exposure to routine use, environmental conditions, and often suboptimal storage or display environments. Unlike highly protected artefacts in controlled museum settings, these objects frequently exist in less regulated contexts, where surface degradation processes can progress without systematic monitoring [20]. Understanding the nature of such degradation is essential not only for conservation purposes, but also for accurate documentation, digital reproduction, and interpretation. In this regard, the study of surface condition forms a critical link between material science, conservation practice, and emerging digital technologies. This section outlines the defining characteristics of everyday heritage, examines the principal mechanisms of surface deterioration, and highlights the key challenges associated with their conservation and accessibility.

2.1. Everyday Heritage: Definition and Value

Everyday heritage refers to material culture associated with ordinary life, including domestic objects, tools, educational artefacts, small-scale urban elements, and items embedded in local or community practices. These objects are often characterized by frequent use, functional design, and wide distribution, rather than rarity or artistic distinction. Their value lies in their capacity to document social behaviors, technological evolution, craftsmanship, and cultural identity at a micro-historical level [21].

In contrast to monumental heritage, everyday heritage is typically less documented and less systematically preserved. However, it plays an important role in educational contexts, as it allows learners to engage with tangible evidence of past and present practices. Furthermore, such objects are particularly suitable for digital documentation and replication, given their manageable scale and relevance to broader audiences.

Table 1. Categories and characteristics of everyday heritage objects.

Category	Examples	Material Types	Typical Degradation Risks	Educational Value
Domestic objects [22]	Cooking utensils, storage vessels, lamps, sewing tools, household containers	Ceramics, metals, glass, wood, textiles, plastics	Surface wear, corrosion, staining, breakage, loss of coatings, biological contamination	Supports understanding of everyday life, domestic practices, material culture, and social history
Tools and craft objects [23]	Agricultural tools, hand tools, weaving tools, workshop equipment, measuring devices	Iron, steel, bronze, wood, leather, composite materials	Corrosion, abrasion, cracking, deformation, handle deterioration, surface deposits	Demonstrates technological practices, craftsmanship, production methods, and labour history
Educational artefacts [24]	School desks, blackboards, laboratory instruments, maps, teaching models, writing tools	Wood, paper, metals, glass, plastics, painted surfaces	Fading, surface scratches, material embrittlement, paper degradation, paint loss	Enables discussion of educational history, pedagogical methods, scientific teaching, and institutional memory
Small-scale urban elements [25]	Street signs, plaques, benches, railings, lighting fixtures, public fountains	Metals, stone, concrete, ceramics, glass, painted coatings	Pollution deposits, corrosion, graffiti, biological growth, weathering, coating failure	Connects heritage with public space, urban memory, community identity, and civic history
Personal and community memory objects [26]	Photographs, letters, medals, clothing items, religious objects, commemorative items	Paper, textiles, metals, wood, glass, mixed materials	Fading, tearing, corrosion, textile weakening, surface contamination, handling damage	Encourages engagement with personal narratives, collective memory, migration, identity, and local histories
Industrial and technical heritage objects [27]	Machine parts, gauges, factory tools, packaging equipment, early electrical devices	Metals, rubber, plastics, glass, lubricants, painted surfaces	Corrosion, lubricant residues, cracking, oxidation, surface contamination, mechanical wear	Supports learning about industrial development, engineering history, manufacturing processes, and technological change
Decorative and functional craft objects [28]	Ceramics, tiles, ornaments, carved objects, embroidery, everyday decorative items	Clay, glaze, wood, textiles, metals, pigments, varnishes	Glaze cracking, pigment loss, surface abrasion, biological attack, discoloration	Highlights traditional techniques, aesthetics of daily life, local craftsmanship, and intangible cultural practices

summarizes the main categories of everyday heritage objects considered in this review, highlighting their typical material composition, degradation risks, and potential educational value.

2.2. Surface Weathering and Contamination

The surfaces of everyday heritage objects are directly exposed to a range of degradation mechanisms, which may act individually or in combination. These processes can alter not only the appearance of objects, but also their structural integrity and interpretative value [29].

Mechanical degradation includes abrasion, impact damage, microcracking, and wear caused by repeated handling or use [30]. Chemical degradation involves oxidation, corrosion, hydrolysis, and reactions induced by pollutants or environmental factors such as humidity and temperature fluctuations [31]. Biological degradation is associated with the growth of microorganisms, fungi, or biofilms, particularly in porous or organic materials [32]. Environmental factors, including ultraviolet radiation, airborne particulates, and salt crystallization, further contribute to surface alteration [33].

These processes often result in the loss of fine surface features, such as inscriptions, tool marks, decorative layers, and patina, which are critical for both conservation assessment and digital documentation. For this reason, accurate recording of surface condition has become increasingly important in heritage research [34]. Although the primary focus of this review is everyday heritage, selected examples from broader heritage conservation are used where they illustrate surface degradation, documentation, or restoration mechanisms that are transferable to smaller-scale everyday objects. The Alexandria funerary monument presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2 is therefore not introduced as an example of everyday heritage in the strict sense, but as a case illustrating surface weathering, material loss, and restoration processes that are also relevant to stone, ceramic, metallic, and urban everyday heritage materials. This distinction is important in order to maintain the scope of the review while still drawing on conservation examples that clarify surface-related mechanisms.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 depict a funerary monument belonging to “Sivitanides” family in the cemetery “A” of Alexandria, Egypt suffering from surface degradation, before (a) and (b) after restoration procedures and its details. The detailed recording, damage study and conservation of funerary marble monuments were conducted in the context of the funded project by the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Recording, study of damage and conservation of funerary marble monuments of the Alexandria Cemetery in Egypt and digitization of their presentation” with scientific director associate professor Theodore Ganetsos, TEI of Lamia, 2013.

Table 2. Types of surface degradation in everyday heritage materials and their main causes.

Degradation Type	Mechanism	Affected Materials	Visual/Tactile Impact
Mechanical wear and surface loss [35]	Repeated handling, abrasion, impact, or use-related friction	Metals, wood, ceramics, stone, plastics, painted surfaces	Scratches, smoothing, dents, loss of relief, reduced tactile definition
Cracking and fracture [36]	Impact, drying, thermal cycling, shrinkage, or internal stress	Ceramics, glass, wood, stone, plaster, polymers	Cracks, broken edges, unstable fragments, interrupted surface continuity
Corrosion and oxidation [37]	Reaction with oxygen, moisture, salts, or pollutants	Iron, steel, bronze, copper alloys, silver	Discoloration, pitting, flaking, powdery deposits, rough texture
Biological colonization and pollution deposits [38]	Growth of fungi, algae, bacteria, lichens, or accumulation of soot/dust	Stone, wood, textiles, paper, painted surfaces, outdoor elements	Staining, darkening, biofilm layers, encrustation, surface softening
Moisture and salt-related degradation [39]	Humidity fluctuations, salt crystallization, swelling, hydrolysis	Stone, ceramics, plaster, brick, wood, paper, textiles	Efflorescence, powdering, warping, staining, delamination
Coating, varnish, and previous-treatment alteration [40]	Ageing, oxidation, poor adhesion, incompatible past treatments	Painted surfaces, wood, metals, furniture, icons, mixed materials	Yellowing, peeling, gloss changes, sticky residues, obscured surface details

contains the prominent types of surface degradation in everyday heritage materials and their main causes.

2.3. Conservation Challenges

The conservation of everyday heritage presents a number of practical and conceptual challenges. From a material perspective, many objects are inherently fragile due to ageing, repeated use, or low-quality materials. Their preservation may require careful handling, stabilization, and environmental control, which are not always feasible outside institutional settings.

Economic constraints also play a significant role. Large numbers of objects, combined with limited funding and resources, make it difficult to apply traditional conservation treatments systematically [41]. In many cases, objects are either left untreated or discarded, leading to gradual loss of cultural information.

Another important limitation is the lack of systematic documentation. Many everyday heritage objects are insufficiently recorded in terms of geometry, surface condition, or material composition [42]. This absence of documentation complicates both conservation planning and future research.

Finally, accessibility remains a key issue [43]. Traditional heritage practices often restrict physical interaction with objects in order to prevent damage, resulting in a predominantly visual mode of engagement. This approach limits opportunities for tactile exploration and excludes visually impaired users from meaningful participation [44]. Addressing these challenges requires alternative strategies that combine conservation, documentation, replication, and inclusive design. Figure 3 depicts key challenges in everyday heritage conservation.

3. Surface Characterization and Digital Documentation

Surface characterization [45] and digital documentation [46] form the technical foundation of a surface-informed approach to everyday heritage conservation. While visual inspection may reveal macroscopic damage, it is often insufficient for understanding material composition, degradation pathways, contamination layers, or subtle changes in texture and morphology. For this reason, non-destructive and minimally invasive analytical methods are increasingly combined with 3D capture technologies to produce a more complete record of heritage objects. This combined approach is particularly relevant for everyday heritage, where objects may be fragile, insufficiently documented, or unsuitable for repeated handling. By linking surface analysis with geometric documentation, it becomes possible to support conservation decisions, monitor material change, guide restoration planning, and generate accurate digital and physical replicas for educational and inclusive use.

3.1. Surface Characterization Techniques

Surface characterization techniques provide essential information about the composition, condition, and deterioration state of heritage materials. In cultural heritage research, priority is usually given to non-destructive or minimally invasive methods, as the preservation of the original object remains a central ethical requirement [47]. The selection of each technique depends on the material under examination, the scale of the surface features, the expected degradation products, and the conservation question being addressed.

Raman spectroscopy is widely used for the molecular identification of pigments, corrosion products, coatings, organic residues, and degradation compounds [48]. Its main advantage lies in its ability to provide highly specific molecular information with limited or no sampling. However, fluorescence interference, surface heterogeneity, and sensitivity to measurement conditions may limit its effectiveness in certain heritage materials [49]. X-ray fluorescence (XRF), by contrast, offers elemental information and is particularly useful for metals, pigments, ceramics, and painted surfaces [50]. Portable XRF systems are valuable for in situ analysis, although the interpretation of layered or heterogeneous materials requires caution [51].

Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) is useful for identifying organic and inorganic compounds, including binders, varnishes, coatings, adhesives, salts, and alteration products [52]. In many cases, FTIR complements Raman and XRF by providing information on molecular groups and material classes rather than only elemental composition [53]. Optical and digital microscopy support the examination of surface morphology, tool marks, cracks, deposits, biological colonization, and treatment residues [54]. These methods are often the first step in a diagnostic workflow, as they allow visible surface features to be documented before more specialized analyses are performed [55].

Surface profilometry contributes quantitative information on roughness, topography, erosion, and surface loss [56]. This is particularly relevant when the object’s value is linked to fine relief, inscriptions, wear traces, or tactile qualities. Hyperspectral imaging offers another important layer of information by detecting spectral variations across surfaces, often revealing underdrawings, contamination, retouching, material differences, or degradation patterns that are not visible to the naked eye [57]. Taken together, these techniques provide a multi-scale understanding of heritage surfaces, from chemical composition to texture and morphology.

Table 3. Main surface characterization techniques used in cultural heritage research.

Τechnique	Main Information Provided	Typical Heritage Applications	Advantages	Limitations
Raman spectroscopy [48,49]	Molecular composition	Pigments, corrosion products, residues	Highly specific, often non-destructive	Fluorescence, sensitivity to surface condition
XRF [50,51]	Elemental composition	Metals, pigments, ceramics, painted layers	Portable, rapid, in situ analysis	Limited depth resolution, complex layered interpretation
FTIR [52]	Functional groups and material classes	Binders, varnishes, coatings, salts, organics	Useful for organic/inorganic compounds	May require contact or micro-sampling depending on setup
Optical/digital microscopy [54,55]	Surface morphology	Cracks, deposits, tool marks, biological growth	Simple, visual, low-cost	Limited chemical information
Profilometry [56]	Roughness and topography	Wear, erosion, surface loss, relief features	Quantitative surface data	Sensitive to object geometry and accessibility
Hyperspectral imaging [57]	Spectral mapping	Retouching, contamination, hidden features	Area-based, non-contact	Data processing complexity

describes the main surface characterization techniques used in cultural heritage research.

3.2. 3D Surface Capture Techniques

Three-dimensional surface capture technologies provide the geometric framework needed for documentation, analysis, monitoring, and replication. Unlike purely analytical techniques, which describe composition or condition, 3D capture methods record shape, volume, surface morphology, and spatial relationships. Their contribution becomes especially important when the object includes relief decoration, inscriptions, deformation, missing parts, or surface wear that must be preserved in digital form.

Structured-light scanning is particularly suitable for small- and medium-sized objects requiring high-resolution geometric capture [58]. It is widely used for artefacts with complex geometry and visible surface detail, as it can generate dense point clouds and accurate meshes under controlled conditions. Its limitations usually relate to reflective, transparent, dark, or highly textured surfaces, which may require surface preparation or adjusted acquisition strategies.

Laser scanning is often used for larger objects, architectural fragments, monuments, and spatial environments [59]. It offers reliable dimensional capture and can be effective in documenting complex geometries at different scales. However, it may be less suitable for very fine surface features when compared with close-range structured-light systems. Photogrammetry, on the other hand, provides a flexible and comparatively low-cost method for producing textured 3D models from overlapping images [60]. Its strength lies in texture capture and accessibility, making it valuable for institutions with limited resources or community-based heritage documentation projects. Nevertheless, its accuracy depends strongly on image quality, lighting, camera calibration, object texture, and processing parameters.

The choice among structured-light scanning, laser scanning, and photogrammetry should therefore be guided by the object’s size, material, surface condition, required accuracy, available equipment, and intended use of the model. For conservation assessment, metric reliability and repeatability are critical. For educational dissemination or digital exhibition, visual realism and accessibility may be equally important. For tactile replication, the ability to capture or reconstruct meaningful surface features becomes a central requirement. Figure 4 presents a comparative workflow of 3D surface capture methods for everyday heritage objects, including structured-light scanning, laser scanning, and photogrammetry while

Table 4. Comparison of 3D surface capture technologies for everyday heritage documentation.

Technology	Best Suited For	Strengths	Limitations	Relevance to Replication
Structured-light scanning [58]	Small/medium artefacts	High-resolution geometry, dense meshes	Sensitive to reflective/dark surfaces	Strong for accurate replicas and tactile models
Laser scanning [59]	Large objects, spaces, fragments	Good dimensional accuracy, scalable	May miss fine surface microdetail	Useful for larger-scale reproductions
Photogrammetry [60]	Textured objects, low-cost documentation	Affordable, texture-rich, flexible	Accuracy depends on image acquisition	Useful for educational models and digital archives

contains a comparison of 3D surface capture technologies for everyday heritage documentation.

3.3. Capturing Surface Degradation

The documentation of surface degradation is one of the most important points of contact between conservation science and digital heritage practice. Cracks, erosion, abrasion, surface loss, corrosion, patina, biological deposits, and contamination layers are not merely visual defects; they are material evidence of an object’s history, use, exposure, and conservation state [61]. For everyday heritage, such traces are often central to interpretation, since they may reveal patterns of handling, production methods, repair, reuse, or social function.

Digital capture can support the recording of these features at different levels. At the geometric level, 3D scanning can document deformation, missing areas, fractures, relief loss, and surface irregularities [62]. At the visual level, high-resolution photography and photogrammetry can preserve information on colour, texture, staining, deposits, and patina. At the analytical level, surface characterization techniques can identify the chemical or elemental nature of alteration products, residues, coatings, or contamination. The integration of these datasets allows the object to be studied not only as a shape, but as a material surface with a documented condition.

This integrated view is important for both conservation and replication. In conservation, it supports condition assessment, treatment planning, and monitoring over time [63]. In replication, it helps determine which surface features should be reproduced faithfully, which should be simplified, and which may need to be enhanced for tactile readability [64]. This is particularly relevant for visually impaired users, for whom surface texture, relief, and contrast between forms may determine whether a replica is informative or confusing. Thus, surface degradation data can inform both preservation decisions and inclusive design strategies.

3.4. Integration into Digital Heritage Workflows

A surface-informed digital heritage workflow should not be limited to the creation of a visually appealing 3D model. Instead, it should connect documentation, analysis, interpretation, preservation, and reuse. A typical workflow may begin with object selection and preliminary visual assessment, followed by surface characterization, 3D capture, model processing, metadata recording, digital archiving, and, where appropriate, physical replication or XR-based interpretation [65].

The sequence scan → analysis → archive is especially useful when everyday heritage objects are fragile, dispersed, or insufficiently documented. Scanning provides the geometric and visual record; analytical methods clarify material condition and surface alteration; archiving ensures that the resulting data remain available for future study, conservation planning, education, and public engagement [66]. When repeated over time, this workflow can also support monitoring by comparing successive digital records and identifying changes in geometry, surface loss, or treatment performance.

The concept of the digital twin is increasingly relevant in this context, although it should be applied carefully in heritage studies [67]. For everyday heritage, a digital twin does not necessarily imply a fully dynamic or sensor-driven model. More realistically, it may refer to a structured digital representation that combines geometry, surface condition, material information, metadata, and conservation history [12]. Such enriched models can support decision-making, facilitate collaboration among conservators and educators, and provide a basis for physical replicas or XR environments.

For the purposes of this review, digital documentation is therefore understood as a connection between surface science and inclusive dissemination. It enables heritage objects to be recorded as material surfaces, translated into digital assets, reproduced through additive manufacturing, and reinterpreted through tactile or immersive experiences. This connection is central to the broader argument of the paper: surface analysis gains additional value when it informs not only conservation, but also access, education, and social inclusion. Figure 5 depicts the proposed integrated workflow linking surface characterization, 3D documentation, digital archiving, additive manufacturing, and inclusive access.

4. Surface Treatment, Restoration and Digital Support

Surface treatment and restoration practices occupy a central position in the conservation of everyday heritage, particularly when surface alteration affects stability, readability, or safe handling. In the context of this review, surface treatment is not approached only as a material intervention, but also as part of a broader documentation and decision-making workflow. The selection of a treatment depends on the object’s material composition, degradation state, intended use, and conservation ethics, especially the principles of compatibility, reversibility, minimal intervention, and long-term stability. Digital tools can support this process by documenting the pre-treatment condition, assisting in restoration planning, and enabling post-treatment monitoring.

4.1. Surface Treatment Technologies

Surface treatment technologies aim to stabilize, protect, or improve the durability of heritage materials while preserving their historical and aesthetic value [68]. Protective coatings are commonly used to reduce the impact of humidity, pollutants, ultraviolet radiation, abrasion, and biological colonization [69]. Depending on the substrate and conservation objective, these coatings may be organic, inorganic, hybrid, or bio-based. Their effectiveness, however, must always be assessed in relation to permeability, optical appearance, ageing behavior, and compatibility with the original surface [70].

Consolidants represent another important category of surface treatment, particularly for porous, friable, or mechanically weakened materials such as stone, plaster, ceramics, wood, and painted layers [71]. Their role is to restore cohesion without creating excessive stiffness, gloss, discoloration, or harmful residues. In this context, the depth of penetration, solvent system, curing behavior, and long-term response to environmental stress are critical parameters. Poorly selected consolidants may stabilize the surface temporarily while creating future conservation problems.

Nanocoatings and nanostructured treatments have attracted increasing interest in heritage conservation because they can offer tailored properties at relatively low application thicknesses [72]. Examples include hydrophobic, photocatalytic, antimicrobial, anti-soiling, or corrosion-inhibiting surfaces. Their potential is significant, but their use in heritage contexts requires careful evaluation, since high performance under laboratory conditions does not always guarantee long-term suitability on aged, heterogeneous, or historically sensitive substrates [73].

Anti-corrosion treatments are especially relevant for metallic everyday heritage objects, including tools, domestic items, industrial artefacts, and urban elements [74]. These treatments may involve corrosion inhibitors, protective films, conversion layers, or controlled environmental strategies [75]. As with all surface interventions, the main challenge is to balance protection with material authenticity, avoiding treatments that alter surface appearance, obscure use-related traces, or complicate future analysis.

Table 5. Surface treatment technologies for everyday heritage materials.

Treatment Type	Typical Materials	Main Purpose	Key Advantages	Main Conservation Concerns
Protective coatings [69,70]	Metals, stone, wood, painted surfaces	Barrier against moisture, pollutants, UV, abrasion	Improved durability and reduced exposure	Ageing, discoloration, reversibility
Consolidants [71]	Stone, plaster, ceramics, wood, painted layers	Cohesion and stabilization	Strengthens weakened surfaces	Penetration control, stiffness, residues
Nanocoatings [72,73]	Stone, metals, glass, ceramics	Hydrophobic, antimicrobial, anti-soiling, protective effects	Thin layers, tailored surface properties	Long-term behavior, compatibility, retreatability
Anti-corrosion treatments [74,75]	Iron, bronze, copper alloys, industrial objects	Corrosion mitigation	Improved stability of metallic surfaces	Visual alteration, inhibitor residues, monitoring needs

contains the prominent surface treatment technologies for everyday heritage materials.

4.2. Surface Restoration Practices

Surface restoration practices are applied when degradation, contamination, or material loss affects the readability, stability, or interpretation of an object. Cleaning is one of the most common interventions, but also one of the most sensitive. Mechanical, chemical, gel-based, laser, or biological cleaning methods may be used depending on the nature of the deposit and the substrate [76]. The objective is not necessarily to return the object to an idealized original state, but to remove harmful or visually disruptive material while preserving historically meaningful traces such as patina, tool marks, wear, and previous use.

Filling and reintegration are used when cracks, losses, gaps, or missing surface areas compromise structural integrity or interpretation [77,78]. These practices may involve compatible mortars, resins, reversible fills, retouching materials, or detachable inserts. In everyday heritage, such decisions require particular care, since traces of use and repair may themselves form part of the object’s value. The restoration strategy should therefore distinguish between damage that threatens preservation and surface evidence that contributes to meaning.

Surface reintegration also raises questions of legibility and authenticity. In some cases, visually discreet reintegration may be appropriate; in others, a clearly distinguishable intervention is preferable [79]. For objects intended for educational display or tactile interpretation, the restoration logic may differ further, since replicas can be used to communicate missing forms or surface details without altering the original. This distinction between conserving the original and reconstructing an interpretable version is especially important when digital and additive manufacturing tools are available. Figure 6 depicts the aforementioned main surface restoration practices.

4.3. Digital Support in Conservation

Digital tools can support surface treatment and restoration at several stages of the conservation process. Before intervention, 3D models, high-resolution imaging, and surface characterization data can help assess damage, identify treatment priorities, and test possible restoration scenarios. Digital simulation may be used to evaluate missing volumes, reconstruct fragmented forms, or visualize alternative reintegration approaches without physically altering the original object.

During and after treatment, digital documentation provides an objective record of conservation decisions. Pre- and post-treatment scans, calibrated photographs, microscopy images, and analytical maps can document cleaning results, coating performance, surface stabilization, or changes in colour and texture [80,81]. This documentation is particularly useful for fragile everyday heritage objects, where future access to the original may be limited or where long-term monitoring is required [82].

Repeated digital capture also supports monitoring over time. By comparing successive datasets, conservators can detect surface loss, deformation, coating failure, renewed corrosion, biological recolonization, or changes in roughness and texture. When these records are connected with metadata on materials, treatments, environmental conditions, and handling history, they can form part of a structured conservation archive or simplified digital twin.

In this sense, digital support does not replace surface treatment or restoration expertise. Rather, it strengthens decision-making by making interventions more traceable, comparable, and reversible in planning. It also creates a link with the broader aims of this review: once surface condition and treatment history are digitally documented, the same data can inform replica fabrication, tactile interpretation, XR visualization, and inclusive access strategies without increasing risks to the original heritage object.

Table 6. Digital tools supporting surface treatment and restoration workflows.

Conservation Stage	Digital Tool	Supported Task	Expected Benefit
Pre-treatment assessment [80]	3D scanning, photogrammetry, microscopy	Damage mapping and condition recording	Baseline documentation
Treatment planning [81]	Digital reconstruction, simulation	Testing fills, reintegration, or missing forms	Reduced intervention risk
Treatment documentation [82]	Pre/post imaging, analytical mapping	Recording cleaning, coating, or consolidation outcomes	Traceability and transparency
Long-term monitoring [83]	Repeat scans, spectral imaging, digital archives	Detecting surface change over time	Preventive conservation support
Public dissemination [84]	Replicas, XR, annotated models	Communicating conservation processes	Education and inclusive access

contains the aforementioned digital tools supporting surface treatment and restoration workflows.

4.4. Coating Technologies Within Surface-Informed Digital Heritage Workflows

Coating technologies contribute to heritage preservation not only by acting as protective barriers, but also by becoming part of a broader surface-informed conservation workflow. In everyday heritage objects, coatings and related surface treatments may be used to reduce moisture ingress, pollutant deposition, ultraviolet-induced alteration, biological colonization, abrasion, or corrosion. Their role is therefore preventive as well as remedial: they can slow further deterioration, stabilize vulnerable surfaces, and extend the safe display or handling life of objects. However, their application requires careful evaluation of substrate compatibility, optical changes, reversibility, ageing behaviour, retreatability, and possible interactions with previous conservation materials [85].

Recent advances in coating science are particularly relevant to heritage applications because they allow surface functionality to be tailored more precisely. Hydrophobic and superhydrophobic coatings can reduce water uptake and salt-related deterioration in porous materials; anti-soiling and self-cleaning coatings may limit the accumulation of pollutants on exposed surfaces; antimicrobial and antibiofouling coatings can reduce biological colonization; and corrosion-inhibiting treatments can improve the stability of metallic objects. Nanostructured and hybrid organic–inorganic coatings are especially promising because they may provide protective effects at low thicknesses, minimizing visual alteration. Nevertheless, their long-term performance on aged, heterogeneous, and historically sensitive substrates remains a critical issue, and laboratory efficiency should not be assumed to translate directly into conservation suitability.

Coatings also interact with digital documentation and replication processes in several ways. Before treatment, high-resolution imaging, colorimetric documentation, profilometry, spectral analysis, and 3D scanning can establish a baseline record of surface condition. After treatment, the same methods can be used to assess changes in gloss, colour, roughness, wettability, morphology, coating uniformity, or the emergence of coating failure [86]. Repeated digital capture can therefore support monitoring by comparing pre- and post-treatment surface states. In addition, digital and additive manufacturing workflows may assist coating research by enabling the production of test replicas or mock-ups on which coating behaviour, visual impact, cleaning response, or tactile qualities can be evaluated before interventions are applied to original heritage objects. This connection is particularly important when treated replicas are intended for handling, education, or tactile access, since protective finishes must preserve both durability and surface readability.

In this sense, coatings should not be viewed as a separate topic within the conservation workflow. They connect material stabilization, surface characterization, digital monitoring, replica fabrication, and inclusive interpretation. Their contribution becomes strongest when coating selection and evaluation are informed by the same surface data used for documentation and replication. This approach strengthens the link between coating science and digital heritage practice and supports a more integrated framework for preserving, studying, and disseminating everyday heritage objects.

5. Additive Manufacturing for Heritage Replication

Additive manufacturing provides a practical connection between digital documentation and physical access to heritage objects. In the context of everyday heritage, its value lies not only in producing visually representative replicas, but also in enabling controlled handling, educational use, exhibition support, and tactile interpretation without placing the original artefact at risk. When informed by accurate surface capture and appropriate material selection, additive manufacturing can translate digital heritage records into physical objects that preserve relevant aspects of form, scale, texture, and surface morphology. At the same time, replica production requires careful decisions regarding fidelity, durability, cost, and intended use, especially when replicas are designed for repeated handling or for visually impaired users [87].

5.1. From Surface Capture to Physical Replica

The production of a heritage replica typically begins with the acquisition of geometric and surface data through 3D scanning, photogrammetry, or a combination of both. The resulting point cloud or mesh is then processed to remove noise, close holes, correct topological errors, and prepare the model for fabrication. In heritage applications, this stage is not merely technical; it involves interpretative decisions about which features should be preserved, reconstructed, simplified, or enhanced [88].

A surface-informed workflow may therefore include several stages: object selection, surface documentation, mesh generation, digital restoration where appropriate, scaling, print preparation, material selection, fabrication, post-processing, and final validation. For fragile or degraded objects, digital repair may be used to reconstruct missing areas or stabilize incomplete geometries in the replica, while the original condition remains fully documented [89]. For tactile applications, fine surface features may need to be enlarged or clarified so that they can be understood through touch rather than sight alone.

In this sense, additive manufacturing should be viewed as part of a broader conservation and communication workflow, rather than as an isolated fabrication step. The quality and usefulness of the final replica depend on the reliability of the digital model, the printing technology, the material, the level of post-processing, and the clarity of the intended interpretative purpose.

5.2. AM Technologies

Several additive manufacturing technologies can be applied to heritage replication, although their suitability varies according to object size, required resolution, surface complexity, cost, durability, and intended use. Among these, fused filament fabrication/fused deposition modeling (FFF/FDM) [90], stereolithography (SLA) [91], and selective laser sintering (SLS) [92] are among the most relevant for cultural heritage applications.

FFF/FDM is widely accessible, relatively low-cost, and suitable for producing robust educational models, large-scale replicas, and tactile objects intended for repeated handling [93]. Its main limitations relate to visible layer lines, reduced ability to reproduce very fine surface details, and the need for careful orientation and support strategy [94]. However, for many educational and inclusive heritage applications, FFF/FDM offers an effective balance between cost, strength, and scalability [95,96].

SLA is particularly relevant when surface detail and fine resolution are priorities. Resin-based printing can reproduce small features, relief decoration, inscriptions, and complex geometries with greater surface smoothness than typical FFF/FDM processes [97]. This makes SLA especially useful for small artefacts, detailed replicas, and objects where surface fidelity is central to interpretation. Its drawbacks include higher material cost, more demanding post-processing, resin handling requirements, and sometimes lower impact resistance depending on the resin used [98].

SLS may be useful for producing durable and geometrically complex replicas without the same support-structure constraints found in FFF/FDM or SLA [99]. It can be advantageous for robust handling models or complex forms, although equipment cost and access remain limiting factors for many museums, schools, and smaller cultural organizations. For this reason, SLS is often less immediately accessible than FFF/FDM and SLA, but it remains relevant for specialized applications.

Table 7. Additive manufacturing technologies for heritage replication.

AM Technology	Typical Materials	Main Strengths	Main Limitations	Suitable Heritage Uses
FFF/FDM [93,94,95,96]	PLA, PETG, ABS, TPU, composites	Low cost, accessible, durable, scalable	Visible layers, lower fine-detail resolution	Educational models, tactile replicas, large objects
SLA [97,98]	Photopolymer resins	High resolution, smooth surfaces, fine detail	Resin handling, post-curing, higher cost	Small detailed replicas, inscriptions, fine relief
SLS [99]	Nylon/polyamide powders	Strong parts, complex geometries, no supports	Higher equipment cost, limited accessibility	Durable handling replicas, complex forms

contains the aforementioned additive manufacturing technologies for heritage replication.

5.3. Surface Fidelity and Material Considerations

Surface fidelity is a central issue in heritage replication, particularly when the replica is intended to communicate surface condition, manufacturing traces, decorative features, or evidence of use. A digitally accurate model does not automatically result in a materially convincing replica. Print resolution, layer height, nozzle diameter, resin behavior, powder grain size, support removal, and post-processing all influence the final surface quality [100].

Texture reproduction is especially challenging. While 3D scanning can capture geometry and photogrammetry can document visual texture, most additive manufacturing processes reproduce geometry more effectively than colour, translucency, patina, or complex material appearance. For this reason, replicas may require additional post-processing, including sanding, coating, painting, patination, or surface finishing. These steps can improve interpretative value, but they may also introduce subjectivity and should therefore be documented clearly [101].

Material selection also depends on the expected function of the replica. Models intended for visual display may prioritize surface smoothness and appearance, while tactile models require durability, safe edges, comfortable handling, and sufficient contrast between surface features. PLA is commonly used because of its ease of printing and relatively low environmental burden, while PETG may provide improved toughness and resistance to repeated handling. Flexible materials such as TPU can be useful for specific tactile or educational applications, although they may not be suitable for fine surface detail. Resin materials can achieve high detail, but their brittleness, cost, and handling requirements must be considered [102].

Sustainable material choices are increasingly relevant, particularly when replicas are produced for educational programs, exhibitions, or outreach activities at scale. Bio-based polymers, recycled filaments, and reduced-waste fabrication strategies can contribute to more responsible production. However, sustainability should be assessed alongside durability and use-life; a fragile replica that must be frequently replaced may not be environmentally preferable to a more durable alternative [103].

5.4. Trade-Offs

The use of additive manufacturing in heritage replication involves a series of trade-offs that should be addressed explicitly during project design. The first concerns accuracy versus cost. High-resolution capture and printing can produce detailed replicas, but may require expensive equipment, specialist expertise, and longer production times. Lower-cost approaches may be more accessible and scalable, but may not preserve fine surface information sufficiently for conservation analysis or detailed interpretation [104].

A second trade-off concerns realism versus usability. A visually realistic replica may not be the most useful object for education or tactile access. For visually impaired users, certain features may need to be simplified, enlarged, strengthened, or emphasized to support tactile understanding. In such cases, strict geometric fidelity may be less important than interpretative clarity. This distinction is essential: a replica for conservation documentation, a replica for museum display, and a replica for tactile learning may require different design choices [105].

Durability is another important consideration. Heritage replicas used in exhibitions or classrooms may be handled repeatedly, transported, cleaned, or used by diverse audiences. Materials and finishes must therefore be selected with expected use conditions in mind. Fragile, highly detailed replicas may be appropriate for controlled display, whereas tactile and educational replicas require greater mechanical robustness [106].

Finally, the ethical status of replicas should be considered. Additive manufacturing can make heritage more accessible, but it may also raise questions about authenticity, authorship, and the distinction between original, reconstruction, and interpretation. Clear documentation of the replication process, including scanning method, digital modifications, printing technology, material, scale, and post-processing, is therefore necessary. Such transparency allows replicas to function as educational and inclusive tools without obscuring the value or material specificity of the original object [107].

Table 8. Key trade-offs in additive manufacturing for heritage replication.

Trade-Off	Main Issue	Practical Implication	Recommended Approach
Accuracy vs. cost [104]	High fidelity requires better equipment and expertise	May limit use in small institutions	Match resolution to intended use
Realism vs. usability [105]	Exact replicas may not be tactile-readable	Important for visually impaired users	Enhance or simplify selected features
Detail vs. durability [106]	Fine features may be fragile	Risk of breakage during handling	Reinforce vulnerable areas
Originality vs. interpretation [107]	Replicas can blur authenticity boundaries	Risk of misleading audiences	Document all digital and physical modifications

contains the aforementioned key trade-offs in additive manufacturing for heritage replication.

6. Inclusive and Tactile Heritage Access for Visually Impaired Users

Inclusive access is a central issue in the contemporary interpretation of cultural heritage. Although digital documentation and physical replication are often discussed in relation to conservation and education, their social value becomes particularly evident when they are used to reduce barriers for users who cannot fully engage with visually oriented exhibitions. For visually impaired users, access to heritage is frequently limited by “look but do not touch” museum practices, the absence of tactile material, and interpretative tools that prioritize images, labels, and visual displays. In this context, 3D scanning and additive manufacturing can support the creation of tactile, durable, and interpretable replicas, while multisensory tools can enrich the experience through audio, Braille, and digital guidance [105]. The aim is not simply to reproduce objects, but to design meaningful encounters with heritage through touch, sound, scale, texture, and guided interpretation.

6.1. Accessibility Challenges in Heritage

Cultural heritage interpretation has traditionally been shaped by visual engagement. Museum displays, exhibition panels, digital catalogues, and virtual environments often assume that the visitor can observe colour, form, surface condition, and spatial arrangement visually. This visual dominance creates a structural limitation for visually impaired users, who may be physically present in heritage spaces but excluded from a full interpretative experience [108].

The issue is particularly relevant for everyday heritage objects, whose meaning is often connected to use, materiality, wear, texture, and handling. A domestic tool, a small urban artefact, an educational object, or a crafted item may communicate much of its significance through scale, weight, edge profiles, surface roughness, or traces of use. When direct handling is prohibited to protect the original object, these dimensions become inaccessible unless alternative forms of engagement are provided [109].

Accessibility should therefore be understood as more than physical entry into a museum or cultural site. It also includes intellectual, sensory, and emotional access to cultural content. For visually impaired users, this requires interpretative strategies that move beyond visual substitution and support tactile and auditory understanding. Digital documentation and additive manufacturing offer a practical route toward this goal, provided that replicas are designed with accessibility requirements in mind from the beginning [110].

6.2. Tactile Replication via 3D Printing

Tactile replication through 3D printing enables heritage objects to be explored without exposing the original artefacts to repeated handling. This is especially valuable for fragile, rare, contaminated, or unstable objects, where direct touch would be inappropriate from a conservation perspective. A printed replica can preserve the general form of the object while allowing users to examine its shape, proportions, relief, and selected surface features through touch.

The use of scaled models is particularly important. Very large objects, such as architectural fragments or urban elements, can be reduced to a manageable size, while very small objects or fine details can be enlarged to improve tactile legibility. Scale adjustment should not be treated as a distortion, but as an interpretative design decision, especially when the aim is to communicate spatial relationships, decorative patterns, inscriptions, or surface damage.

In some cases, surface features may need to be enhanced. Slightly raised relief, clearer boundaries between forms, simplified textures, or reinforced fragile elements can make a replica more understandable for tactile exploration. This is where the connection between surface documentation and inclusive design becomes critical. The objective is not always to produce the most visually accurate replica, but to create a physical object that communicates the relevant heritage information effectively through touch (Figure 7).

6.3. Multisensory Interpretation

Tactile replicas are most effective when integrated into a broader multisensory interpretation strategy. Touch can communicate form, scale, relief, and texture, but additional information is often required to explain material history, function, cultural context, and conservation condition [105]. Braille labels [111], raised-line diagrams [112], audio descriptions [113], QR codes [114], NFC tags [115], and mobile applications [116] can all support this process.

Braille and raised labels provide direct access to basic identification and orientation information. Audio description can offer richer contextual interpretation, explaining object function, historical background, surface alterations, and the reasoning behind any modifications made to the replica. QR and NFC technologies can connect the physical replica to layered digital content, including narrated descriptions, 3D models, conservation notes, or multilingual resources.

This multimodal approach is particularly suitable for educational and museum environments, where users may differ widely in age, sensory ability, prior knowledge, and learning preferences. Importantly, multisensory interpretation should not be treated as a separate accessibility add-on. When designed well, it benefits all visitors by making heritage objects more understandable, memorable, and engaging.

Table 9. Multisensory interpretation tools for accessible heritage experiences.

Tool	Main Function	Benefits for Visually Impaired Users	Design Considerations
Tactile replica [105]	Physical exploration of form and texture	Supports direct understanding through touch	Safe edges, durable material, readable surface detail
Braille label [111]	Basic object identification	Provides independent access to key information	Clear placement and standardized Braille quality
Raised-line diagram [112]	Simplified spatial or decorative layout	Helps interpret complex forms and patterns	Avoid excessive detail or confusing textures
Audio description [113]	Contextual and narrative interpretation	Communicates history, function, and meaning	Concise, structured, and synchronized with touch
QR/NFC tag [114]	Access to extended digital content	Enables layered information and personalization	Must be easy to locate and use

contains the aforementioned multisensory interpretation tools for accessible heritage experiences.

6.4. Design Considerations

The design of tactile heritage replicas requires a careful balance between surface fidelity, interpretative clarity, safety, and durability. A replica that is visually accurate may not necessarily be effective for tactile exploration [117]. Fine surface details may be too small to perceive by touch, while highly complex textures may create confusion rather than understanding. For this reason, tactile replicas often require selective simplification or enhancement.

Surface readability is a key criterion [118]. Important features such as inscriptions, relief patterns, cracks, tool marks, or decorative boundaries may need to be slightly enlarged or sharpened in the printed model. Conversely, surface noise, scanning artefacts, or irrelevant damage may need to be reduced. These decisions should be guided by the educational or interpretative purpose of the replica and, where possible, by consultation with visually impaired users or accessibility specialists.

Safety is equally important [119]. Replicas intended for handling should avoid sharp edges, brittle details, unstable parts, toxic materials, or fragile finishes. They should also be easy to clean, especially in public or educational settings where repeated handling is expected [120]. Material selection, print orientation, layer adhesion, and post-processing therefore become accessibility considerations as much as fabrication choices [121].

A final issue concerns the relationship between simplification and accuracy. In conservation contexts, accuracy is often treated as a primary objective [122]. In tactile interpretation, however, strict accuracy may sometimes need to give way to usability. This does not reduce the scholarly value of the replica, provided that all modifications are documented transparently [122]. A useful approach is to distinguish between three replica types: conservation replicas, which prioritize fidelity; educational replicas, which prioritize explanation; and tactile-access replicas, which prioritize sensory readability and inclusive interaction. Figure 8 depicts the aforementioned design principles for tactile heritage replicas while

Table 10. Design criteria for tactile replicas intended for visually impaired users.

Design Criterion	Purpose	Practical Guidance
Surface readability [118]	Make relevant features understandable through touch	Enhance key reliefs, inscriptions, and boundaries where necessary
Safe handling [119]	Prevent injury and object breakage	Round sharp edges and reinforce thin or fragile areas
Scale adaptation [120]	Improve tactile exploration	Enlarge small objects or reduce large forms to manageable size
Material durability [121]	Support repeated use	Select materials resistant to handling, cleaning, and minor impact
Interpretative clarity [122]	Avoid tactile overload	Simplify irrelevant textures or scanning noise
Transparency [122]	Preserve academic integrity	Document all changes from the original digital model

contains the discussed design criteria for tactile replicas intended for visually impaired users.

6.5. User-Centered Evaluation and Evidence Gaps

The effectiveness of tactile replicas and XR-based heritage tools cannot be assessed only through technical quality or visual appearance. For visually impaired users, evaluation should consider whether the replica supports independent exploration, whether surface features are tactilely readable, whether scale and simplification choices improve understanding, and whether complementary audio, Braille, QR/NFC, or AR elements provide useful contextual information. User-centered evaluation may therefore include direct handling sessions, structured interviews, task-based usability testing, observation of tactile exploration strategies, and feedback from visually impaired participants, accessibility specialists, educators, and museum professionals.

Available studies indicate that tactile replicas can support engagement, spatial understanding, and object-based learning when they are designed with user needs in mind [123]. However, the evidence remains uneven. Many reported applications are based on small-scale case studies, prototype demonstrations, or short-term museum/educational interventions. In several cases, evaluation focuses on general visitor impressions rather than measurable learning outcomes, long-term retention, independent use, or comparative performance between different tactile design strategies. Evidence is also limited regarding how users interpret different surface textures, how much detail is optimal, and when simplification or enlargement improves rather than distorts understanding.

XR tools present similar challenges. Although VR and AR can add context, narrative, and remote access, many applications remain visually oriented and are not fully tested with visually impaired users. Accessibility features such as spatial audio, voice guidance, screen-reader compatibility, simplified navigation, haptic feedback, or tactile reference objects are often discussed as design possibilities, but less frequently evaluated in real exhibition settings [124]. Practical barriers also remain, including device cost, maintenance, staff training, user fatigue, motion discomfort, software obsolescence, and the risk of cognitive overload.

For these reasons, future work should move toward co-design and iterative evaluation rather than technology-led development. Testing with visually impaired users should inform feature selection, scale adaptation, tactile readability, interpretative clarity, and long-term usability. This is particularly important for everyday heritage, where meaning is often communicated through material traces, surface wear, scale, and evidence of use.

7. XR Technologies and Multimodal Heritage Interpretation

Extended reality (XR) technologies, including virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and related immersive interfaces, can expand the interpretation of everyday heritage beyond the limits of conventional display. In the context of this review, XR is not treated as a substitute for conservation or physical replication, but as a complementary layer that can support remote access, contextual understanding, and multimodal engagement. When connected with surface documentation and 3D models, XR tools can help users explore heritage objects, visualize their original context, understand degradation processes, and interact with reconstructed environments. However, their value depends on careful design, especially when accessibility and inclusive interpretation are considered.

7.1. VR for Remote Exploration

Virtual reality enables users to access heritage objects, collections, or environments without being physically present at the site or institution. This is particularly useful for objects that are fragile, stored in restricted collections, geographically distant, or difficult to display [125]. Through VR environments, users can examine reconstructed spaces, interact with digitized artefacts, and experience interpretative narratives that combine visual, spatial, and auditory information.

For everyday heritage, VR can be especially valuable when objects need to be understood within their original social or functional context. A domestic object, workshop tool, classroom artefact, or urban element may gain interpretative meaning when placed within a reconstructed environment. In such cases, VR can support contextual learning by showing how objects were used, where they were located, and how they related to broader cultural practices [125].

Nevertheless, VR should be applied with care. Immersive environments require appropriate hardware, technical expertise, and user-friendly interaction design. They may also introduce barriers for users who experience motion discomfort, have limited digital familiarity, or require non-visual modes of interaction. For this reason, VR applications in heritage should ideally include adjustable levels of immersion, clear navigation, audio description, and alternative access formats.

7.2. AR for On-Site Interpretation

Augmented reality can enrich physical heritage experiences by overlaying digital information onto real objects, replicas, or exhibition spaces. Unlike VR, which creates a fully virtual environment, AR can support interpretation while maintaining the user’s connection with the physical setting. This makes it particularly suitable for museums, educational spaces, archaeological sites, and community heritage exhibitions [126].

In everyday heritage contexts, AR can be used to display object histories, material information, surface degradation maps, restoration stages, or reconstructions of missing elements. For example, a visitor examining a 3D-printed replica could use a mobile device to access annotations explaining surface wear, manufacturing traces, or conservation treatments. AR can also support layered interpretation, allowing different users to access different levels of information according to their needs, age, language, or prior knowledge [127].

The main limitation of AR is that many applications remain heavily visual. If information is presented only through screen-based overlays, visually impaired users may still be excluded. Therefore, AR systems intended for inclusive heritage interpretation should be designed with audio output, tactile references, voice guidance, screen-reader compatibility, and simple interaction pathways. In this sense, AR should be understood as part of a multimodal system rather than a purely visual enhancement.

7.3. Complementarity with Physical Replicas

XR technologies and physical replicas serve different but complementary interpretative functions. Physical replicas provide tactile and spatial access, allowing users to understand scale, form, relief, texture, and handling qualities. XR environments, by contrast, can provide context, narrative, reconstruction, and dynamic information that cannot be easily embedded in the object itself. When used together, they can create richer heritage experiences than either approach alone.

This complementarity is particularly important for visually impaired users. A tactile replica can support direct exploration through touch, while an audio-enhanced XR or AR layer can explain what the user is touching, identify key features, and provide historical or conservation context [128]. For example, a replica of a degraded surface could be accompanied by audio cues describing areas of corrosion, missing material, or restoration, while a digital model could present alternative reconstructions or original-use scenarios.

The combined use of replicas and XR also supports different learning preferences. Some users may benefit from physical manipulation, others from spatial immersion, and others from guided auditory explanation [129]. In educational settings, this layered approach can support active learning, group discussion, and differentiated instruction. In museum contexts, it can reduce dependence on the original object while increasing interpretative depth and accessibility.

Table 11. Complementary roles of XR technologies and physical replicas in heritage interpretation.

Tool	Main Contribution	Strengths	Limitations	Best Use in Inclusive Heritage
Physical replica [105]	Tactile and spatial access	Handling, scale, texture, durability	Limited contextual information	Tactile exploration and object-based learning
VR [124,125]	Remote and immersive exploration	Contextual reconstruction, spatial narratives	Hardware needs, possible discomfort	Remote access with audio-guided environments
AR [126,127]	On-site layered interpretation	Annotations, restoration views, object data	Often visually oriented	Audio-enhanced guidance linked to replicas
Audio description [128,129]	Narrative and contextual support	Accessible, low cost, adaptable	Requires careful scripting	Explaining tactile features and heritage meaning
QR/NFC interface [114]	Access to extended digital content	Flexible, multilingual, scalable	Requires device interaction	Personalized interpretation and layered learning

contains the aforementioned complementary roles of XR technologies and physical replicas in heritage interpretation.

7.4. Opportunities and Limitations for Accessibility

XR technologies can support accessibility by enabling remote access, adaptive interpretation, multilingual content, guided exploration, and audio or haptic feedback. However, they also introduce new design responsibilities. When combined with digital models and tactile replicas, XR can broaden heritage interpretation beyond visual observation.

For visually impaired users, the most promising XR applications are those that combine spatial audio, voice guidance, tactile reference points, simplified navigation, and compatibility with assistive technologies. Haptic interfaces, although still not widely available in everyday museum practice, may also become relevant for communicating shape, resistance, or surface features in virtual environments. However, such systems must be evaluated carefully, since technical novelty alone does not guarantee accessibility or usability [130].

Practical limitations also remain. XR development can be costly, and many cultural institutions lack the infrastructure or staff training required for long-term maintenance. Devices may become obsolete, software requires updates, and digital experiences may lose functionality without sustained support. Poorly designed XR applications may also create cognitive overload, exclude users with disabilities, or distract from the heritage object itself [131].

For these reasons, XR should be integrated selectively and purposefully. Its strongest role in the framework proposed here is not to replace physical engagement, but to enrich it. When XR is combined with surface-informed replicas, clear audio interpretation, and accessible interaction design, it can become a meaningful component of inclusive heritage practice.

8. Challenges, Sustainability and Future Directions

The integration of surface characterization, digital documentation, additive manufacturing, XR technologies, and inclusive interpretation offers substantial opportunities for everyday heritage. It also introduces practical and methodological challenges. These concern not only technology selection, but also surface-data reliability, digital-asset management, long-term replica use, institutional skills, and the environmental impact of digital and manufacturing workflows.

Although the technologies discussed in this review offer considerable potential, their maturity and evidential basis differ substantially. Surface characterization methods such as Raman spectroscopy, XRF, FTIR, microscopy, profilometry, and hyperspectral imaging are relatively well established in conservation science, but their integration with 3D documentation and replica design remains less standardized. Similarly, 3D scanning and photogrammetry are widely used for documentation, yet the degree to which they can reliably capture fine surface degradation, tactilely meaningful texture, or treatment-related changes depends strongly on resolution, lighting, calibration, processing parameters, and validation procedures. Additive manufacturing is increasingly applied to heritage replication, but evidence remains uneven regarding long-term durability, cleaning resistance, tactile readability, and the interpretation of post-processed surfaces. XR technologies offer promising possibilities for contextual and remote interpretation, but many applications remain prototype-based and visually oriented, with limited validation involving visually impaired users. Therefore, the practical value of these approaches should be assessed not only in terms of technical feasibility, but also in relation to conservation reliability, user evaluation, institutional capacity, and long-term maintenance. To clarify these differences,

Table 12. Critical comparison of technologies discussed in the review.

Technology/Approach	Current Maturity in Heritage Practice	Main Strengths	Main Limitations	Evidence Gaps
Surface characterization	High for diagnostic conservation use	Provides material, chemical, and degradation-related information	Requires expertise, interpretation may be complex for layered or heterogeneous surfaces	Limited integration with replica design and accessibility workflows
3D scanning and photogrammetry	Moderate to high for documentation	Records geometry, morphology, and visible surface features	Accuracy depends on equipment, lighting, surface properties, and processing choices	Limited validation for capturing tactilely meaningful surface information
Additive manufacturing	Moderate for replicas and education	Enables physical handling, teaching, and replica-based interpretation	Surface fidelity, durability, and post-processing vary by technology and material	Limited long-term testing of handled replicas in museum/educational settings
Coatings and surface treatments	High in conservation, variable by material	Support stabilization, protection, consolidation, and corrosion control	Compatibility, reversibility, ageing, and visual alteration remain concerns	Limited coupling with digital monitoring and replica-based treatment testing
XR technologies	Emerging to moderate	Supports contextualization, remote access, and layered interpretation	Often hardware-dependent, visually oriented, and costly to maintain	Limited accessibility-focused evaluation, especially with visually impaired users
Tactile and multisensory access	Emerging but highly relevant	Expands heritage engagement beyond visual interpretation	Requires careful design, user testing, and accessibility expertise	Limited co-design studies and standardized evaluation metrics

summarizes the relative maturity, main limitations, and evidence gaps associated with the principal technologies and approaches discussed in this review.

8.1. Technical Challenges

One of the most immediate technical challenges concerns equipment cost and accessibility. High-resolution scanners, spectroscopic instruments, hyperspectral imaging systems, professional AM equipment, and XR development tools can significantly exceed the budgets of smaller museums, schools, archives, or community heritage organizations. Although low-cost photogrammetry and desktop 3D printing have lowered the entry barrier, they do not always provide the accuracy, repeatability, or surface fidelity required for conservation-oriented applications [132].

Data handling represents another major limitation. Surface characterization and 3D documentation workflows generate large and heterogeneous datasets, including point clouds, meshes, texture maps, spectral data, microscopy images, metadata, and treatment records [133]. Without clear protocols for file naming, metadata structure, storage, version control, and long-term archiving, these datasets may become difficult to reuse or verify. This is particularly problematic when digital records are intended to support monitoring, replication, or future conservation decisions.

Fidelity also remains a central concern. A digital model may appear visually convincing but still fail to capture relevant surface information, such as microcracks, subtle erosion, patina, tool marks, or contamination layers [134]. Similarly, a 3D-printed replica may reproduce overall geometry while losing fine texture or material appearance. The issue becomes more complex when replicas are designed for tactile access, since some features may need to be enhanced or simplified. Therefore, fidelity should not be treated as a single metric, but as a function of intended use: conservation documentation, visual display, education, or tactile interpretation may each require different levels and types of accuracy.

Table 13. Main technical challenges in digital and surface-informed heritage workflows.

Challenge	Main Cause	Impact on Heritage Workflow	Possible Mitigation
Equipment cost [132]	High-end scanners, analytical instruments, AM systems	Limited adoption by small institutions	Shared facilities, low-cost protocols, service-based access
Data volume [133]	Large meshes, images, spectra, metadata	Difficult storage, processing, and reuse	Standardized file management and archiving
Surface fidelity [134]	Resolution limits and material constraints	Loss of fine degradation or texture information	Match capture and printing resolution to intended use

contains the aforementioned main technical challenges in digital and surface-informed heritage workflows.

8.2. Organizational Challenges and Training Needs

Beyond equipment and software, the successful adoption of these technologies depends heavily on institutional capacity. Many cultural and educational organizations lack personnel trained in both conservation principles and digital technologies. A 3D model, a surface map, or a printed replica may be technically impressive, but its value is reduced if staff cannot interpret, maintain, update, or integrate it into educational and curatorial practice.

The skills gap is particularly evident at the intersection of disciplines [135]. Surface characterization requires knowledge of materials and degradation processes. 3D documentation depends on competence in acquisition, mesh processing, and validation, while additive manufacturing requires expertise in design preparation, materials, and post-processing. Inclusive interpretation adds further requirements, including accessibility standards, tactile design, and user-centered evaluation [136]. In many institutions, these competences are distributed across different professionals or are absent altogether.

Training is therefore a structural requirement, not an optional supplement. Short-term workshops may introduce tools, but sustainable implementation requires continuous professional development, technical support, and collaboration between conservators, educators, engineers, designers, accessibility experts, and user communities [137]. For visually impaired users in particular, co-design should be considered essential. Replicas and multisensory tools should not be developed only “for” users, but where possible “with” them, so that design decisions reflect real tactile, cognitive, and interpretative needs.

8.3. Sustainability Considerations

Sustainability in digital and replicated heritage should be considered from both environmental and social perspectives, but related claims must be treated with caution [138]. Although additive manufacturing, digital archiving, and local production may reduce the need for transporting fragile objects, repeated handling of originals, or conventional exhibition fabrication, these benefits cannot be assumed without life-cycle assessment, energy measurements, material flow analysis, or durability data. The environmental performance of a replica depends on multiple factors, including printing technology, build time, failed prints, support structures, post-processing, material type, cleaning requirements, transport distance, reuse frequency, and service life. For this reason, sustainability in this field should be understood as a context-dependent design objective rather than an inherent property of additive manufacturing or digital production.

Additive manufacturing may reduce the need for transporting fragile objects, repeated handling of originals, or production of conventional exhibition materials. However, it also introduces material consumption, energy use, failed prints, support waste, post-processing residues, and hardware maintenance requirements. These factors should be assessed realistically, especially when replicas are produced at scale for education, outreach, or travelling exhibitions [139].

Material selection is a key issue. PLA, recycled filaments, bio-based polymers, and durable thermoplastics may offer different environmental and functional advantages, but no material is universally sustainable in all contexts [140]. A low-impact material that breaks easily and requires frequent replacement may be less sustainable than a more durable material with a longer service life [141]. Similarly, resin-based printing may offer excellent surface detail, but its environmental and safety implications must be considered, especially in institutions without specialized facilities [142].

Energy consumption also depends on technology, build time, printer settings, post-processing, and the number of iterations required to achieve an acceptable result [143]. Good design preparation, efficient orientation, print validation, and reuse of digital files can reduce waste. Circular approaches may include recycled materials, modular exhibition components, repairable replicas, shared digital repositories, and local production to reduce transport needs [144].

The social dimension of sustainability is equally important [145]. A heritage workflow that improves accessibility, supports education, enables tactile engagement, and extends cultural participation has broader value than one focused solely on object preservation. Inclusive design, particularly for visually impaired users, should therefore be considered part of sustainable heritage practice, because it contributes to long-term cultural relevance, public engagement, and social equity. Accordingly, future work should include comparative life-cycle assessments, energy-use measurements, and material durability studies for heritage replica production. Such evidence is necessary before strong claims can be made regarding the environmental advantages of recycled filaments, local production, or digitally mediated fabrication workflows.

Table 14. Sustainability considerations in additive and digital heritage workflows.

Sustainability Dimension	Key Issue	Potential Risk	Possible Strategy
Materials [140]	Filaments, resins, powders, coatings	Waste, toxicity, low durability	Bio-based/recycled materials, durable selection
Energy [143]	Printing, scanning, post-processing	High consumption from long workflows	Optimized settings and reduced failed prints
Waste [141]	Supports, failed prints, consumables	Increased environmental burden	Design validation and recycling where possible
Transport [144]	Movement of objects or exhibits	Risk to originals and carbon emissions	Local production from digital files
Social sustainability [145]	Access and public value	Exclusion of disabled users	Tactile replicas and multisensory interpretation

contains the aforementioned sustainability considerations in additive and digital heritage workflows.

8.4. Future Research

Future research should focus on improving the reliability, accessibility, and sustainability of surface-informed digital heritage workflows. Artificial intelligence can play a useful role in surface analysis, particularly in the automated detection of cracks, erosion, staining, corrosion, biological growth, and other degradation patterns. Similar image-based approaches combining texture descriptors and deep learning features have already shown potential in particle and surface-pattern recognition tasks, suggesting possible transferability to heritage surface analysis workflows [146]. Machine learning approaches may also support classification of surface condition, comparison of repeated scans, and prioritization of conservation interventions. However, such methods must be trained on reliable datasets and remain interpretable for conservation professionals.

Smart replicas represent another promising direction. Replicas could incorporate embedded sensors, NFC tags, audio triggers, or interactive elements that provide information on object function, material history, surface degradation, or conservation treatments. For educational and inclusive contexts, such replicas could support guided tactile exploration, personalized learning, and multilingual interpretation. Care must be taken, however, to keep the technology robust, maintainable, and appropriate to the heritage context.

Haptic XR also deserves further investigation. While VR and AR can provide visual and auditory interpretation, haptic interfaces may allow users to experience shape, resistance, texture, or spatial relationships in digital environments. This could be especially valuable for visually impaired users and for remote access to fragile or inaccessible heritage objects. At present, however, many haptic systems remain expensive, technically demanding, or insufficiently validated in real museum and educational settings.

Finally, more consistent inclusive design frameworks are needed. Current practices for tactile replicas, accessible XR, Braille integration, audio description, and surface adaptation are often developed case by case. Future work should define practical criteria for selecting surface features, adjusting scale, simplifying complex forms, documenting modifications, and evaluating tactile readability with visually impaired users. Statistical shape modelling approaches from interactive design and biomedical modelling may offer useful analogies for generating adaptive or parameter-driven replica geometries from limited morphological or functional inputs [147,148].

9. Conclusions

One of the most crucial applications for bringing together conservation, documentation, education, and accessibility is everyday heritage. Even though these objects could be considered minor compared to monumental heritage, they serve as a source of significant information about the practice of everyday life, cultural identity, material culture, and social memory. The surfaces of such objects usually contain a considerable amount of this information through such things as abrasions, tooling, patinas, decoration, contamination, or aging. Thus, the field of surface science plays a key role in interpreting and preserving them.

This work has shown that surface characterization and digital documentation can operate as complementary approaches in the study and preservation of everyday heritage objects. Techniques such as Raman spectroscopy, X-ray fluorescence (XRF), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), microscopy, profilometry, and hyperspectral imaging provide valuable information on material composition and degradation processes, while 3D scanning and photogrammetry capture geometry, morphology, and visible surface features. When integrated into a coherent workflow, these data can support conservation planning, treatment documentation, monitoring, digital archiving, and future reuse.

Additive manufacturing extends this workflow by transforming digital records into physical replicas. Such replicas can reduce handling of fragile originals, support teaching and exhibitions, and enable tactile interpretation. However, replication requires careful decisions regarding scale, material, surface fidelity, post-processing, and feature enhancement, depending on whether the intended use is conservation, education, display, or accessibility.

A key conclusion is that inclusive access should be embedded from the beginning of the heritage workflow. For visually impaired users, tactile replicas, Braille, audio description, QR/NFC-supported content, and accessible XR tools can provide forms of engagement that visual displays alone cannot offer. In this context, replicas become interpretative objects that communicate heritage through touch, sound, scale, and guided exploration.

Overall, integrating surface science, digital documentation, additive manufacturing, and multimodal interpretation offers a promising framework for everyday heritage. Its implementation requires collaboration among conservators, material scientists, engineers, designers, educators, museum professionals, accessibility experts, and user communities. Future work should prioritize clearer standards, sustainable materials, stronger user evaluation, and the systematic involvement of visually impaired audiences in design and assessment.