Back

Smartphones vs DSLR Cameras in Dental Photography: An In Vitro Assessment of Linear Dimensional Shift in the Esthetic Zone

Boontharak, A.; Amornsettachai, P.; Visuttiwattanakorn, S.

2026-03-24 dentistry and oral medicine
10.64898/2026.03.20.26348950 medRxiv
Show abstract

The in vitro study aimed to evaluate linear dimensional shifts in intraoral photographs of the esthetic zone captured using two smartphone cameras--the iPhone 15 Pro Max and the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra--compared to a digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera, which is regarded as the gold standard for dental photography. Imaging was performed under controlled conditions using a custom-designed stand and stabilizer to maintain a consistent distance and angle between the dental model and the photographic devices. Standardized frontal and occlusal images of the anterior maxillary region were acquired, and point-to-point linear measurements between specified dental landmarks were performed using calibrated digital imaging software. Each measurement was conducted triple and then averaged across various samples per image to guarantee precision and dependability. Friedmans test with Bonferroni correction was applied for statistical analysis to evaluate differences among the imaging devices. The results indicated no statistically significant variations in linear measures between the DSLR and the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (p > 0.05), however minor inconsistencies were noted between the DSLR and the iPhone 15 Pro Max. It is important to acknowledge that all images were obtained utilizing the stabilization system, which contrasts with the conventional handheld approach applied in clinical environments and could impact the external validity of the results. The Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra, in telephoto mode, demonstrated measurement precision similar to that of a DSLR camera, potentially serving as a reliable choice for clinical intraoral photography. The iPhone 15 Pro Max demonstrated potential, although minor measurement discrepancies.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 5%
23.9%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 8%
8.9%
3
Journal of Dental Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.6%
4
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
7.2%
5
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
BioMed Research International
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.6%
7
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.6%
8
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
9
Applied Sciences
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
10
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.8%
11
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.6%
12
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
13
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 44%
1.6%
14
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
15
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
16
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
Biomolecules
95 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
18
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
19
Translational Vision Science & Technology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
20
Journal of Biophotonics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
21
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Biomedical Optics Express
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%