J Orthod. 2025 Aug 17:14653125251358837. doi: 10.1177/14653125251358837. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of orthodontic clinical photographs taken with a mirrorless camera and a smartphone compared with those taken with a digital single lens reflex (DSLR) camera.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved six participants (models), each of whom had five extra-oral and five intra-oral photographs taken using a DSLR (Canon 70D), a mirrorless camera (Canon RP) and a smartphone (iPhone 14 Pro), resulting in a total of 180 photographs. Four orthodontists served as assessors, evaluating the quality of each photograph based on image clarity, colour accuracy and lighting. They categorised the photographs as ‘good’ (no errors), ‘acceptable’ (some errors) or ‘unacceptable’, while also noting any specific errors observed. Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher’s exact test and Pearson’s chi-square test. All statistical tests were interpreted at a significance level of 5%.
RESULTS: Compared to the DSLR camera, the photographs taken with the mirrorless camera were of identical quality, with 100% of photographs rated as good for each camera. For the smartphone camera, 41.7% were assessed as good and 58.3% as acceptable, which was significantly less (P < 0.001) than for the DSLR (100% good). For smartphone intra-oral photographs, the majority of ‘upper occlusal’ and ‘lower occlusal’ photographs were classified as ‘good’ (62.5%), while the remaining 37.5% were rated as ‘acceptable’. In contrast, for ‘right buccal’ and ‘left buccal’ photographs, the majority of photographs (87.5%) were categorised as ‘acceptable’, with only 12.5% rated as ‘good’.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, although DSLR and mirrorless cameras consistently produce high-quality orthodontic photographs suitable for all clinical and professional purposes, smartphone cameras fall short in photographic quality. Given their lower resolution and pixel count, smartphone-captured photographs may be adequate for clinical records but are not recommended for large-format applications.
PMID:40819226 | DOI:10.1177/14653125251358837
