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