ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Comparison of accuracy and reliability between smartphone and digital single-lens reflex camera in clinical dental photography: an in vivo study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to determine whether flagship smartphones can approach the performance of professional digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) cameras using a standardized workflow incorporating color calibration and optical zoom.
methodsThree DSLR cameras (Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, Canon EOS 80D, Nikon D610) and two smartphones (iPhone 17 Pro Max, Galaxy S24 Ultra) were used to capture nine standardized extraoral and intraoral views for each of 25 volunteers. Images were evaluated for color accuracy, dimensional accuracy, and image quality. Statistical analyses were conducted using one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance and paired t-tests, with Bonferroni correction applied for multiple comparisons (α = 0.05).
resultsGray-card calibration significantly reduced smartphone image ΔE values (P < 0.001), resulting in lower ΔE values than those of the DSLR group with standardized white balance (P < 0.001). Regarding dimensional accuracy, images captured with the iPhone 17 Pro Max at 4× optical zoom showed no significant difference from DSLR cameras (P = 0.178), whereas the Samsung device significantly underestimated arch width (P = 0.041). Samsung achieved the most favorable BRISQUE score.
conclusionsUnder a standardized workflow incorporating color calibration and appropriate optical zoom, smartphone photography achieved gray-card-based color accuracy and relative dimensional consistency comparable to those of DSLR cameras, providing a more convenient and feasible imaging option. However, DSLR cameras still demonstrated advantages in clinically demanding aesthetic cases. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Using a standardized workflow that includes appropriate optical zoom, professional dental lighting, and gray-card-based color calibration, smartphone photography can achieve relatively satisfactory reproduction of dental color and dimensional consistency, representing a potentially reliable and cost-effective option for clinical documentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42461427What 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.