ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Influence of Controlled Lighting Conditions on Smartphone-Based Augmented Reality Recognition of a 3D-Printed Dental Model for Implantological Applications.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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
Smartphone-based augmented reality (AR) may help dentists visualize an implant axis during treatment or training. Before a virtual overlay can be displayed, however, the application must first recognize the real target reliably. This in vitro study tested how five lighting conditions affected recognition of a two-colored, 3D-printed polylactic acid (PLA) dental model by a Unity/Vuforia smartphone application. The application ran on a Samsung Galaxy S22. A GoPro HERO10 recorded the smartphone display at 240 frames per second, and the videos were evaluated frame by frame. Red, green, blue, daylight-like light-emitting diode (LED) and halogen illumination were tested at a central and an eccentric model position, with ten repetitions per condition and position. The model was not recognized under red or blue illumination within the predefined observation interval. Recognition was successful in all repetitions under green, daylight-like and halogen illumination. Recognition speed differed among these successful conditions, and the eccentric position delayed recognition under daylight-like and halogen illumination. A supplementary region-of-interest analysis also showed lighting-dependent differences in image brightness and contrast. These findings indicate that lighting should be standardized and documented when smartphone-based dental AR systems are developed and tested.
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.