Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Dec 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014 Dec;102(12):4326–4335. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35108

Comparison of the a), b) fiber diameters and c), d) pore sizes of 3DP scaffolds printed at a), c) F = 300mm/min and b), d) 400mm/min measured using optical microscopy. The data represent means of four samples with the error bars representing the standard deviations. One-way ANOVA was used to determine significant differences within each F/s combination (p < 0.05). Significance in (#) s = 1.8 group, (*) s = 2.0 group, (†) s = 2.5 group. A–C Values marked with same letter do not differ. Note: It was not possible to print all F/s combinations at P = 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20psi (where bars are absent).

Comparison of the a), b) fiber diameters and c), d) pore sizes of 3DP scaffolds printed at a), c) F = 300mm/min and b), d) 400mm/min measured using optical microscopy. The data represent means of four samples with the error bars representing the standard deviations. One-way ANOVA was used to determine significant differences within each F/s combination (p < 0.05). Significance in (#) s = 1.8 group, (*) s = 2.0 group, (†) s = 2.5 group. A–C Values marked with same letter do not differ. Note: It was not possible to print all F/s combinations at P = 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20psi (where bars are absent).