ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Visual Observation, Digital Camera, and Smartphone Photography for Tooth Shade Selection: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate shade selection is critical for achieving esthetic success in fixed prosthodontics. This in vitro study aimed to compare the accuracy and reliability of shade selection using conventional visual assessments, digital camera photography, and smartphone photography. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen shade tabs were evaluated by 10 observers (three professors, four postgraduate students, and three laboratory technicians), resulting in 100 observations per method. Shade matching was performed using the VITAPAN Classical shade guide (VITA Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH and Co. KG, Bad Säckingen, Germany) under standardized daylight conditions (5000-6500 K). Visual selection relied on direct comparison, while digital camera and smartphone images were captured with consistent settings. Accuracy was determined based on agreement with a predetermined reference shade. Statistical analyses included Cochran's Q test for overall differences, pairwise McNemar tests with Bonferroni adjustment, Fleiss' kappa for inter-observer agreement, and Cohen's kappa for intra-observer agreement between methods.
resultsBoth digital camera and smartphone methods demonstrated significantly higher accuracy and consistency than the visual approach. Digital camera and smartphone photography showed substantial inter-observer reliability and strong agreement between the two digital techniques, effectively reducing the variability associated with observer experience. No meaningful differences were observed between the digital camera and smartphone methods.
conclusionDigital cameras and smartphone photography provided reliable, objective alternatives to conventional visual shade selection, offering improved accuracy and reproducibility. These techniques hold promise for enhancing shade communication in clinical prosthodontics, particularly in settings where accessibility and standardization are priorities. Further in vivo investigations are warranted to confirm its applicability in clinical conditions.
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.