ArticleJournal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry2026
Assessment of gingival characteristics by professional versus smartphone imaging.
Article in Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate evaluation of gingival health requires understanding inflammation as a sign of disease activity or healing. Only a few studies have examined the gingiva in depth using non-invasive imaging techniques. Therefore, this study assessed the accuracy of evaluating gingival parameters using professional (Canon EOS 1300D, Canon Inc., Japan) and smartphone (iPhone 15 Pro, Apple Inc., USA) cameras, with pre- and post-treatment photographs. Methods: Thirty-four patients with gingivitis were selected, and photographs were captured using professional and smartphone cameras. Gingival parameters were examined using pictures of the maxillary anterior region taken at distances of 24, 28, and 32 cm from the examination site. All the images were evaluated using the free ImageJ software (US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA) with an accuracy of 0.01 mm. The paired t-test was used to compare gingival color values and clinical measurements. A P value of<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were no significant differences in gingival parameters between images taken using either professional or smartphone photography. The results showed no significant differences in gingival color assessment at 24-, 28-, and 32-cm distances between the two images. Conclusion: Digital images obtained with DSLR and smartphone cameras showed comparable accuracy for gingival parameter measurements at the tested distances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.