Skip to main content

Table 1 3D comparison of 3D-CT, 3D-FDM, and 3D-GAS of the tibia models

From: Geometric accuracy of an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene canine tibia model fabricated using fused deposition modelling and the effects of hydrogen peroxide gas plasma sterilisation

Case

EFDM-CT (3D-FDM vs. 3D-CT)

EGAS-FDM (3D-GAS vs. 3D-FDM)

RMS value (mm)

RMS value (mm)

No.1

0.1300

0.0373

No.2

0.1564

0.0568

No.3

0.1463

0.0284

No.4

0.1151

0.1123

No.5

0.1292

0.0301

No.6

0.1323

0.0320

No.7

0.0910

0.0223

No.8

0.1074

0.0258

No.9

0.1024

0.0614

No.10

0.1178

0.0402

No.11

0.1099

0.0398

No.12

0.1194

0.0311

  1. 3D-FDM Images obtained from reverse-scanned 3D-printed tibia models before sterilisation, 3D-CT Original tibia images obtained from CT, 3D-GAS Images obtained from reverse-scanned 3D-printed tibia models after sterilisation, RMS Root mean square