SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2026
Can smartphone cameras be a viable alternative to digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) cameras for dental shade assessment?
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onAlhumoud T, Zankawi A, Li KY, Yu O, Pow E, Lam W. Performance of smartphone cameras for measuring and analyzing dental shade: A systematic review. J Dent. 2026; 166:106506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2026.106506 .
designA systematic review evaluating the performance of digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) and smartphone-acquired photographs for dental shade assessment. The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines, was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024580518), and searched five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies comprised both in vivo and in vitro experimental designs evaluating dental shade assessment using smartphone cameras compared with DSLR cameras. Primary outcomes included colour difference (ΔE) relative to a reference standard (accuracy) and/or between devices (agreement). Studies evaluating three-dimensional imaging modalities, such as intraoral scanners, as well as teeth affected by bleaching, restoration discoloration, or carious lesions within the shade assessment area, were excluded. Only English-language full-text articles were eligible, while conference papers, case reports, and review articles were excluded. DATA ANALYSIS: Risk of bias was assessed using a modified QUADAS-2 tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Due to extreme heterogeneity in study designs, imaging protocols, camera systems, and outcome assessment methods, meta-analysis was not considered appropriate. Findings were therefore synthesised narratively and presented using descriptive forest plots.
resultsEight studies were included, comprising three in vivo, three in vitro, and two mixed-design studies. Findings regarding colour difference (ΔE) were highly inconsistent, with some studies favouring DSLR cameras and others favouring smartphones for dental shade assessment. Considerable clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity (I
conclusionsThe available evidence comparing smartphone and DSLR photography for dental shade assessment is heterogeneous and inconclusive. Neither device has demonstrated consistent superiority, suggesting that standardised image acquisition, calibration, and image-processing protocols may be more important than the choice of camera system. Future research should adopt standardized methodologies and workflows to support evidence-based recommendations for device selection in dental shade matching.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42521764What 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.