Dimensional Different of Digital Images Taken Directly and from Photographic Mirror Using 60 and 100 Millimeter Macro Lens
Photograph provides information and reliable legal evidence in clinical dental practice. This study compared the dimensional difference in digital images taken directly and from 5 photographic mirrors (2 coated glass mirrors and 3 stainless mirrors) using SLR digital camera (Canon 450D) equipped with 60 and 100 mm macro lens (Canon EF-S 60 mm f/2.8 and Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8). The in vitro situation was set up to control the photographic factor. Ten photographs from each group were measured using image analyzing software. The data of 19 landmark distance from each photograph was analyzed statistically using one-way ANOVA and Scheffe’s multiple comparison (α=0.05). The dimension of images taken from photographic mirror was different from taken directly in a range of 0.00-0.14 millimeters for 60 mm macro lens and 0.00-0.24 millimeters for 100 mm macro lens. The number of landmark distance of images taken from photographic mirror that significantly different from image taken directly were lesser when 60 mm macro lens was used. The image taken using 60 mm macro lens in conjunction with coated glass photographic mirror was not significantly different from the image taken directly.Within the simulated situation, it was concluded that image taken from photographic mirror usually different from image taken directly. The combination usage of 60 mm macro lens and coated glass photographic mirror provided the dimensional quality of image comparable to image taken directly.
1. Christensen GJ. Important clinical used for digital photography. JADA 2005; 136: 77-79.
2. Mladenovic D, Mladenovic K, Mladenovic S. Importance of digital dental photography in the practice of dentistry. Acta Facultatis Medicae Naissensis 2010; 27: 75-79.
3. Ogodescu AS, Sinescu C, Ogodescu EA, Negrutiu M, Bratu E. Digital tools in the interdisciplinary orthodontic treatment of adult patients. International journal of biology and biomedical engineering 2010;
4: 97-105 4. Snow SR. Assessing and achieving accuracy in digital dental photography. CDA 2009; 37: 185-191.
5. Paredes V, Gandia JL, Cibrián R. Digital diagnosis records in orthodontics. An overview. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Buccal 2006; 11: E88-93.
6. Palomo JM, Wolf GR, Hans M G. Use of digital photography in the case orthodontic clinic. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126: 381-385.
7. Rehnberg P. Clinical photography manual Sweden: Astra Tech; 2003.
8. Sandler J, Dwyer J, Kokich V, et al. Quality of clinical photographs taken by orthodontists, professional photographers, and orthodontics auxiliaries. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 657-662.
9. Morgan K. Reflection and planar mirrors USA: Michigan State University; 2001.
10. Kanetaka H, Suzuki A, Tomizuka R, Urayama
S, Takano-Yamamoto T. : Development of a
new ultra-precision-polished pure titanium
mirror for dental treatment. Paper read at the
2nd International Symposium for Interface Oral
Health Science : Interface Oral Health Science.
18-19 February 2007, at Sendai Japan.
11. Koch H, Otto A, Schlump W. : Stainless steel and the challenge of time. Paper read at the conference stainless steel for architectural visions. 15 May 2001, at Saint Herblain France.
12. Designer handbook: The care and cleaning of stainless steel [database on the internet]: The Stainless Steel Information Center: Specialty Steel Industry of North America. [cited 2011 Dec 5]. Available from http://www.ssina.com/ index2.html
13. Swain J. The “then and now” of electropolishing. Surface World. 2010: 30-36.
14. The EF lens world [database on the internet]: Canon INC. [cited 2011 Oct 23]. Available from: http://software.canon-europe.com/files/ documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_4_EN.pdf
15. EF Lenses for EOS Cameras [database on the internet]: Canon INC. [cited 2011 Oct 23]. Available from: http://www.canon.co.nz/~/ media/Product%20Brochures/Lenses/ eos_ef_lens_guide%20web.ashx
16. Zhang Y, Xiao L, Li J, Peng Y, Zhao Z. Young people’s esthetic perception of dental midline deviation. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 515-520.
17. Kokich VO, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: Asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 141- 151.
18. Pinho S, Ciriaco C, Faber J, Lenza MA. Impact of dental asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 748-753.