IADR Abstract Archives
Reliability of smartphone-cameras for color-mixing chewing-gum test for masticatory efficiency
Objectives: This study assessed the reliability of smartphone-cameras for acquiring chewing gum photos to be used in the evaluation of chewing efficiency (CE).
Methods: A healthy, fully dentate, subject produced five test specimens of varying degrees of CE according to a visual Subjective Analysis (SA: SA1–SA5) using a validated two-colored chewing gum (Hue-check). The gums were flattened to a thickness of 2 mm in a transparent cellophane pouch. Both sides of the wafer were scanned using a flatbed scanner (control group). The wafers were photographed (both sides) with 8 different smartphones (test groups: i5s, i6, i7, i8, iX, SS6, SS7, SS8). Each degree of CE was photographed by each smartphone, 20 times. The images from the control and test groups were edited so as to acquire both faces of the gums into a single image, for each specimen. This image was then analyzed for the variance of hue (VOH) using a software (Viewgum). Mean and standard deviation were used to assess inter-group differences and intra-group variability. Spearman’s correlation, one-way ANOVA and descriptive statistics were applied for statistical analyses (alpha=0.05).
Results: The mean overall VOH values decreased from SA1 to SA5, and were correlated with the degrees of CE (rs>-0.97; p<0.001). The comparisons of VOH between the control and smartphone groups were statistically significant for all degrees of CE (p<0.001). Nevertheless, the magnitude of differences was low (iX=-0.02 to i6=0.06; SA4=0.005 to SA2=0.044). Similarly, within-group variability was low (<1%) for all devices from SA1–SA3. Conversely, the control group presented lower variability (SA4=2.5%; SA5=0.79%) compared to the mean variation of smartphones (SA4=5.57%; SA5=8.76%).
Conclusions: Smartphone-camera images can capture the changes in CE similar to the conventional flatbed scanner. However, for well-mixed gums, the smartphone-camera seems less reliable than the scanner, but this finding needs to be tested for its clinical significance with further studies.
Methods: A healthy, fully dentate, subject produced five test specimens of varying degrees of CE according to a visual Subjective Analysis (SA: SA1–SA5) using a validated two-colored chewing gum (Hue-check). The gums were flattened to a thickness of 2 mm in a transparent cellophane pouch. Both sides of the wafer were scanned using a flatbed scanner (control group). The wafers were photographed (both sides) with 8 different smartphones (test groups: i5s, i6, i7, i8, iX, SS6, SS7, SS8). Each degree of CE was photographed by each smartphone, 20 times. The images from the control and test groups were edited so as to acquire both faces of the gums into a single image, for each specimen. This image was then analyzed for the variance of hue (VOH) using a software (Viewgum). Mean and standard deviation were used to assess inter-group differences and intra-group variability. Spearman’s correlation, one-way ANOVA and descriptive statistics were applied for statistical analyses (alpha=0.05).
Results: The mean overall VOH values decreased from SA1 to SA5, and were correlated with the degrees of CE (rs>-0.97; p<0.001). The comparisons of VOH between the control and smartphone groups were statistically significant for all degrees of CE (p<0.001). Nevertheless, the magnitude of differences was low (iX=-0.02 to i6=0.06; SA4=0.005 to SA2=0.044). Similarly, within-group variability was low (<1%) for all devices from SA1–SA3. Conversely, the control group presented lower variability (SA4=2.5%; SA5=0.79%) compared to the mean variation of smartphones (SA4=5.57%; SA5=8.76%).
Conclusions: Smartphone-camera images can capture the changes in CE similar to the conventional flatbed scanner. However, for well-mixed gums, the smartphone-camera seems less reliable than the scanner, but this finding needs to be tested for its clinical significance with further studies.
