Chapter 7: Investigating Other Photogrammetry Systems
When comparing ICam to other photogrammetry systems, several key differences become apparent. Systems like MicronMapper, Tupel, PIC, Shining 3D Aoral Elite, and IOS methods have been investigated, and the results highlight significant shortcomings: MicronMapper, PIC and Tupel These systems often struggle with achieving the same level of precision and trueness as ICam. The lack of four moving cameras results in less accurate measurements, leading to potential misfits and increased stress on implant abutments. Their plastic scanbodies are prone to expansion in the body and deformation when torqued or autoclaved. Shining 3D Aoral Elite Unvetted and preliminary data shows not as reliable—especially in the presence of blood, saliva, and other intraoral challenges. This can lead to higher rates of remakes and adjustments. IOS Methods Intraoral scanners (IOS) are generally less accurate than dedicated photogrammetry systems like ICam. This method is highly-technique sensitive, not scalable and prone to error propagation and tolerance stacking, resulting in less predictable outcomes.
Saving a few dollars on inferior methods for capturing implant position can lead to significant long-term costs in failures and complications. The precision of ICam isn't just a luxury—it's an investment in your practice's reputation and your patients' satisfaction.