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