## 3 Results  
Table 4 presents the results based on the procedures used to verify the measurement systems' accuracy for macrogeometry assessment. The error values were obtained in GOM. Inspect for the Atos II Scan and Focus Inspection 9.3 software for the measuring arm with a laser head. Figure 8: Material ratio curve and associated parameters. Figure 9 presents the results based on the procedures used to verify the measurement systems' accuracy for microgeometry assessment. The Ra value for the standard was 6 \(\upmu\)m. When measured on the Alicona InfiniteFocusG4, the parameter value was 5.815 \(\upmu\)m. The system's accuracy was verified using SPIP 6.4.2 software. The accuracy of the anatomical models was verified using GOM Inspect 2019 software. Using best-fit methods, the nominal model from the design stage was aligned with the reference model created during the measurement stage using the measuring arm system with a laser head and Atos II Triple Scan. Based on the data, three-dimensional deviation maps were made for the pelvis model manufactured in one piece and three parts. The 3D deviation maps for all patients are presented in Figures 10-15 from measurements using the measuring arm with a laser head system and in Figures 16-21 from measurements using the Atos II Triple Scan system. The averaged statistical parameters are presented in Table 5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Measuring Arm with a Laser Head** \\ \hline
**Acceptance Test According to ASME B89.4.22** & **Measured Value/Maximum Permission Error (2\(\sigma\))** \\ \hline Effective diameter test & \(\pm\)0.005 mm/\(\pm\)0.008 mm \\ \hline Single-point articulation test & \(\pm\)0.020 mm/\(\pm\)0.024 mm \\ \hline Volumetric performance test & \(\pm\)0.030 mm/\(\pm\)0.035 mm \\ \hline Laser head test (flat plate) & \(\pm\)0.018 mm \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Atos II Triple Scan} \\ \hline Acceptance test according to VDI/VDE 2634 & Measured value/Maximum permission error (2\(\sigma\)) \\ \hline Probing error & \(\pm\)0.004 mm/\(\pm\)0.006 mm \\ \hline Sphere–spacing error & \(\pm\)0.008 mm/\(\pm\)0.020 mm \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Maximum error (2\(\sigma\))} \\ \hline Flatness measurement error & \(\pm\)0.022 mm \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The results of verification of optical systems for macrogeometry assessment. Figure 9: Standard measurement data obtained on an Alicona InfiniteFocusG4. Figure 11: Examples of 3D deviation maps obtained from measurements using the measuring arm with a laser head system for patient no.1 for a part of the pelvis model manufactured in one piece. Figure 10: Examples of 3D deviation maps obtained from measurements using the measuring arm with laser head system for patient no.1 for the area: (**a**) One; (**b**) Two; (**c**) Three. Figure 12: Examples of 3D deviation maps obtained from measurements using the measuring arm with laser head system for patient no.2 for the area: (**a**) One; (**b**) Two; (**c**) Three. Figure 13: Examples of 3D deviation maps obtained from measurements using the measuring arm with a laser head system for patient no.2 for a part of the pelvis model manufactured in one piece. Figure 14: Examples of 3D deviation maps obtained from measurements using the measuring arm with laser head system for patient no.3 for the area: (**a**) One; (**b**) Two; (**c**) Three. Figure 15: Examples of 3D deviation maps obtained from measurements using the measuring arm with a laser head system for patient no.3 for a part of the pelvis model manufactured in one piece. Figure 16: Examples of 3D deviation maps obtained from measurements using the Atos II Triple Scan system for patient no.1 for the area: (**a**) One; (**b**) Two; (**c**) Three. Figure 17: Examples of 3D deviation maps obtained from measurements using the Atos II Triple Scan system for patient no.1 for a part of the pelvis model manufactured in one piece.