## 3 Results and Discussions
Figure 10: In-shoe Pedar results for blue Filaflex 8A insoles design 2 (black—15 kPa, dark blue—40 kPa, light blue—60 kPa, green—100 kPa, red—200 kPa, magenta—300 kPa). Table 3 provides a summary of the most important findings from the tests, including the shore A hardness and comfort evaluations. In this study, the comfort could only be correlated with the mechanical aspect (cushioning), as the testing time was too short to evaluate aspects related to specific aspects such as moisture and heat transfer, which remain an open subject for future research. The user feedback on the insoles' comfort is synthetically presented below:  
1. Filaflex 82A black and blue, design 1--the hardness of the insole was too high, making it difficult to bend it in the forefoot area of the shoe (black insole--the top surface of the insole was too rough and felt uncomfortable, blue insole--the top surface was smooth);
2. PolyFlex 90A, design 1 and 2--the hardness of the insole was too high; it was difficult to bend it in the shoe in the forefoot area (design 1--the top surface of the insole was smooth, design 2--felt uncomfortable because of the thickness for the forefoot area where the toes are constrained);
3. VarioShere 1, design 1--the top surface was smooth, and the hardness of the insole felt high, but it was less difficult to bend than the previous insoles;
4. Filaflex 60A, design 1--the hardness of the insole was too low; the infill structure of the insole could be unpleasantly felt by the user during walking;  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  
5. Varioshore, design 2--the hardness of the insole was high but lower than that of previous insoles, and it was easier to bend in the shoe, but it had too many constraints for the foot because of the thickness for the forefoot area;
6. Filaflex 70A, design 1--the hardness of the insole was too low, but it felt better than the Filaflex 60A insole; the infill from inside the insole could be felt by the user, but it was more comfortable to wear than the Filaflex 60A, and the weight of the body seemed to be sustained;
7. VarioShore 2, design 1--the hardness of the insole seemed almost perfect, it was easy to bend in the shoe, the top surface was smooth, and the weight of the body felt well sustained. Figures 12 and 13 graphically represent the shore A hardness values for each tested insole, respectively; the deformation was determined by the pressure applied in the forefoot and heel foot areas. Table 4 presents the results of the hardness measurements immediately after 3D printing and after the tests. The PolyFlex 90A design 1 inside exhibited the fewest deviations (0.03) between the two measurements, as seen in the graph in Figure 12 and in Table 4. The largest variations were observed in Filaflex 70A, with a difference of 0.45 from the initial measurement, followed by Varioshore 220 \({}^{\circ}\)C-25% (design 1 and 2), with \(-\)0.44 and 0.44. When it comes to changes in insole hardness (both minimum and maximum values), it could be observed that the insole least impacted by testing were Filaflex 82A blue, PolyFlex 90A, and varioShore 190 \({}^{\circ}\)C-220 \({}^{\circ}\)C-20%, while the most affected ones were Filaflex 60A and Filaflex 70A. In terms of comfort, varioShore 190 \({}^{\circ}\)C-220 \({}^{\circ}\)C-20% stands out due to its elasticity and foam-like structure, providing a supportive and cushioned feeling under weight. It exhibited minimal deviation from the initial measurements, with a value of \(-\)0.15, and maintained a hardness of approximately 52A.