ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Comparative Analysis of Macro and Zoom Lenses for Dental Shade Selection: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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
objectiveThis in vitro study evaluated the color accuracy and image sharpness of common macro and zoom lenses on a full-frame body and tested whether differences among macro-lens brands are clinically meaningful. MATERIALS AND
methods26 VITA 3D-Master shade tabs were each photographed three times under standardized, cross-polarized conditions on a Nikon D610. Three macro lenses (Nikon 105 mm, Sigma 105 mm, and Tamron 90 mm) and four zoom lenses (Nikon 24-70 mm, Nikon 24-120 mm, Sigma 24-70 mm, and Nikon 24-85 mm) were compared. RAW files were converted to CIELAB; reference L*a*b* values were obtained with a 45°/0° spectroradiometer under D65. Color difference (ΔEab, CIE76) was computed for every image. Sharpness was assessed by ISO 12233 slanted-edge SFR (MTF50) at f/16 and f/22. Linear mixed-effects models with shade tab as a random effect were fitted; equivalence was tested with two one-sided tests (TOST) at a prespecified ΔEab margin of 0.6.
resultsAll macro lenses produced low, clinically acceptable color errors (mean ΔEab = 1.2; SD = 0.2) with negligible inter-brand differences, and all macro-macro comparisons met the 0.6 equivalence margin. Zoom lenses showed significantly higher errors (mean = 2.95-3.35; SD = 0.42-0.50) and failed equivalence. Brand differences among macro lenses were non-significant (F = 0.92, p = 0.40), whereas macro-vs-zoom differences were highly significant (F = 792.1, p < 0.0001); 81% of pooled zoom images exceeded the ΔEab acceptability threshold of 2.7, versus none of the macro images. MTF50 confirmed superior macro sharpness, with macro-macro differences within ±5% of the Nyquist frequency.
conclusionsDedicated macro lenses are required for accurate shade photography, with general-purpose zoom lenses producing clinically unacceptable color errors.
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.