ArticleBMC oral health2026
Diagnostic accuracy of smartphone and macro camera imaging for dental caries and oral health conditions.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of digital intraoral photographs obtained using smartphones and a macro camera in evaluating oral health among adults.
methodsA total of 200 adult patients underwent clinical and radiographic examinations using the Decayed, Filled Teeth (DFT) Index, Caries Assessment Spectrum and Treatment (CAST) Index, Plaque Index (PI), and Modified Gingival Index (MGI). Intraoral photographs were taken using three devices: Samsung S23 Ultra, iPhone 14 Pro, and Canon EOS 400D with macro lens. Following the clinical recording of DFT, CAST, PI, and MGI scores by two calibrated examiners as the reference standard, intraoral photographs were captured by a third dentist and independently evaluated by two separate blinded examiners to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the devices against the clinical findings. Non-parametric analyses were conducted using the Friedman test with Dunn's post hoc test, Wilcoxon test and agreement between clinical and photographic methods was evaluated via the Bland-Altman method (p < 0.05).
resultsThe macro camera demonstrated the highest inter-rater reliability for FT scores (ICC = 0.886), while iPhone-derived MGI scores showed the lowest reliability (ICC = 0.624). Statistically significant differences were found among all imaging devices for all indices (p < 0.001), except for MGI. Bland-Altman analysis showed that most values fell within the 95% limits of agreement, indicating good concordance with clinical data.
conclusionsSmartphone and macro camera photographs provided comparable diagnostic results for caries and restorations. However, limitations remain in the assessment of periodontal parameters via photographic methods. Smartphone-based intraoral photography can serve as a practical diagnostic tool in teledentistry.
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.