Table 1.
Structural specification of samples designed by Solidworks.
Table 2.
Fabrication condition of samples.
Figure 1.
Different printing orientation of samples.
Figure 2.
Different printed samples with different pore size (a), μCT images of samples with 0.4 and 0.6 mm pore size after depowdering (b).
Table 3.
Different orientation and layer thickness of sample printing.
Figure 3.
XRD pattern of ZP150 powder, Calcium Sulfate semihydrate.
Figure 4.
Cumulative Particle size distribution of ZP150, Calcium Sulfate Semihydrate.
Figure 5.
Printed scaffolds with different layer thickness (a), printed samples in different orientation (b), μCT results: lateral view of 90° (c) and 180° (d), and a middle cross sectional view including: layer of powders (e), pores and struts (f), 3D printed specimen (g), scaffold designed using SolidWorks (h).
Table 4.
Comparision of samples' specification between CAD design and μCT results.
Figure 6.
Porosity reduction in 3DP samples compared to CAD design.
Figure 7.
Changes in pore volume of samples during printing.
Figure 8.
SEM image of particles.
Figure 9.
SEM image of one pore in 3D printed sample.
Figure 10.
SEM image of pores and struts on peripheral wall of samples printed in X direction.
Table 5.
Surface Area of both designed and 3DP Samples.
Figure 11.
Average diameter of 3D printed samples with standard error.
Table 6.
The average diameter of 8 samples for each group of layer thickness and printing orientation including the ANOVA results.
Figure 12.
Average height of 3D printed samples with standard error.
Table 7.
The average height of 8 samples for each group of layer thickness and printing orientation including the ANOVA results.
Figure 13.
Compressive Stress-Strain Curve for different layer thickness in X (a), Y (b) and Z (c) direction printing.
Figure 14.
Comparison of compressive strength (a), Young's modulus (b) and toughness (c) in samples printed with different layer thickness in various orientation.