ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Analysis of Image Quality Assessment Between Digital Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) Camera and Smartphone Camera for Dental Photography.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The growing sophistication of smartphone cameras has prompted enquiry into their suitability as alternatives to digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) cameras for clinical dental photography. This study compared the image quality of a DSLR camera and two smartphone systems, each fitted with an identical macro lens, for intraoral dental photography using objective colorimetric and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metrics. Methods Thirty dental students were enrolled in this comparative, cross-sectional study. Standardised intraoral photographs were captured across seven views using three camera systems: a DSLR with a Canon 100 mm macro lens and ring flash (Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan), a Samsung smartphone (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Suwon, South Korea), and an Apple iPhone (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA), the latter two fitted with an identical custom Sony 100 mm macro lens and twin flash (Sony Group Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). CIELAB colour space (CIE L*, a*, and b*) values were recorded in Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Inc., San Jose, CA), and the total colour difference (ΔE) was calculated. SNR was computed in MATrix LABoratory (MATLAB) (MathWorks, Natick, MA) from a standardised background region. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc tests were applied (significance: p < 0.05). Results The DSLR produced the most consistent colour rendition and served as the colour reference standard. The mean ΔE between the DSLR and the smartphones was comparable for the two devices (25.63 ± 8.62 for Samsung; 25.98 ± 9.56 for iPhone; p = 0.486), and both values substantially exceeded the clinically acceptable threshold of ΔE ≤ 2.0. Mean lightness (L*) was markedly lower for the DSLR (25.24) than for the Samsung (47.47) and iPhone (47.59) systems (p < 0.001). A warm, yellow-shifted smartphone bias was most evident in the frontal shade-matching view. SNR was highest for the iPhone, followed by the Samsung, and lowest for the DSLR, a reversal attributable to artificial-intelligence-driven computational noise reduction in the smartphones. Conclusions The DSLR remains the reference standard for colour-critical intraoral dental photography. The elevated SNR recorded for the smartphones reflected computational noise reduction rather than superior image fidelity. Neither smartphone achieved clinically acceptable colorimetric agreement with the DSLR, nor did brand materially influence this outcome once the optical configuration was standardised. Standardised calibration protocols warrant further investigation before smartphone systems are adopted for colour-critical applications.
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.