ArticleCureus2026
A Comparative Evaluation of Shade Selection Using Digital Photography and the VITA 3D-Master Shade Guide: 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim and objectives Accurate shade selection is critical for achieving optimal esthetic outcomes in restorative dentistry. Digital photography has emerged as an alternative to conventional visual shade matching; however, the accuracy of smartphone (SP) cameras compared with digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) cameras remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare Commission Internationale de l'Éclairage L*a*b* (CIELAB) color coordinates obtained from SP and DSLR images with manufacturer-provided values of the VITA 3D-Master shade guide (VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) and to evaluate the reliability of smartphone photography for shade selection. Methods An in vitro study was conducted using a commercial VITA 3D-Master shade guide. Images of 26 shade tabs were captured using an iPhone 13 smartphone (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) and a Canon EOS 700D DSLR (Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan). Two images per shade tab were obtained under standardized daylight conditions (4000-5000 K) at a fixed distance of 18 cm against a neutral gray background, yielding a total of 104 images. Image selection was standardized based on predefined criteria of focus and exposure consistency. CIELAB color values (L*, a*, b*) were extracted using digital image analysis software. Color differences (ΔE) between photographic values and manufacturer reference values were calculated using the CIEDE2000 formula. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, with significance set at P < 0.05. Results Statistically significant differences were observed between SP and DSLR images in deviations of L*, a*, and b* values (P < 0.05). DSLR images demonstrated greater color accuracy, achieving 75% agreement with manufacturer reference values, whereas SP images showed 55% agreement. Mean ΔE values were lower for DSLR images, indicating improved color fidelity. Conclusions Within the limitations of this in vitro study, DSLR photography demonstrated greater accuracy in shade selection compared to smartphone photography. Although smartphones may serve as an accessible adjunct, they currently exhibit lower color accuracy than DSLR systems for shade determination.
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.