YOUTUBE'DAKİ FİBER POST VİDEOLARININ GÜVENİLİRLİĞİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Year 2024, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 92 - 99, 26.01.2024

Yelda Erdem Hepşenoğlu Gülhan Yıldırım

https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1303158

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, YouTube'da yer alan fiber post ile ilgili videoların kalite ve yeterliliğini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: YouTube'da "fiber post" anahtar kelimesi ile arama yapıldı. Başlangıçta 216 videodan oluşan bir örneklemden, tüm dahil etme kriterlerini karşılayan yalnızca 123 video içerik kalitesi değerlendirildi. Videoların özellikleri belirlendikten sonra izlenme verileri kaydedildi. İçerik kalitesi Video Bilgi Kalitesi Endeksi (VIQI) ve Küresel Kalite Ölçeği (GQS) kullanılarak değerlendirildi. İstatistiksel analiz için Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney U ve Fisher's Exact Ki-Kare testleri kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Videoların %69’u sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından yüklendiği bulundu. En yaygın bahsedilen konu “materyal” (%84) ve bunu kavite hazırlama türü (%72) takip ediyordu. Videoların %90’ı "düşük içerikli" olarak kategorize edildi. "Yüksek içerikli" videoların VIQI ve GQS puanları daha yüksekti. Toplam içerik puanı ile VIQI ve GQS puanları arasında pozitif korelasyon bulundu. Dikkat çeken bir diğer bulgu ise VIQI ve GQS puanları arasındaki pozitif korelasyondur (p<0.001).
Sonuç: Fiber post ilgili YouTube videoları, genellikle düşük kaliteli içerikli olduğu için yeterli bir bilgi kaynağı oluşturmamaktadır. Sağlık profesyonelleri, hastaların daha iyi bilgilere erişebilmesi için daha yüksek kaliteli videolar yüklemeye çalışmalıdır.

Keywords

Fiber post, YouTube, VIQI, GQS, içerik kalitesi

EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF YOUTUBE VIDEOS ABOUT FIBER POSTS

Abstract

Aim: The study aimed to analyze the quality and adequacy of YouTube videos about fiber posts.
Material and Method: YouTube was searched for the “fiber post” key phrase. Out of an initial sample of 216 videos, only 123 that met all inclusion criteria were subjected to content-quality assessment. After identifying the videos’ characteristics, their viewership data were noted as well. Content quality was evaluated using the Video Information Quality Index (VIQI) and the Global Quality Scale (GQS). Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher's Exact Chi-Square tests were used for statistical analysis.
Results: Most of the sample was uploaded by health care professionals (69%). The most common topic was materials (84%), followed by cavity preparation type (72%). The vast majority was categorized as “low content” (90%). “High-content” videos had higher VIQI and GQS scores. Positive correlations were found between total content score and VIQI and GQS scores. Another notable finding is a positive correlation between VIQI and GQS scores (p<0.001).
Conclusion: YouTube videos about fiber posts do not constitute an adequate source of information, with generally poor-quality content. Health care professionals should strive to upload higher quality videos so that patients can have access to better information.

Keywords

fiber post, youTube, VIQI, GQS, Content Quality

References

• Referans1. Al-Omiri MK, Mahmoud AA, Rayyan MR, Abu-Hammad O. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with post-retained restorations: an overview. J Endod 2010;36:1439–49.
• Referans2. Cecchin D, Farina A, Guerreiro C, Carlini-Júnior B. Fracture resistance of roots prosthetically restored with intra-radicular posts of different lengths. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:116–22.
• Referans3. Monticelli F, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Micromorphology of the fiber post-resin core unit: a scanning electron microscopy evaluation. Dent Mater 2004;20:176–83.
• Referans4. Ferrari M, Vichi A, García-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of fiberreinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. Am J Dent 2000;13:15B–18B
• Referans5. Ekren O. Farkli post-kor sistemlerinin kırılma dayanımının invitro olarak değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Univ Diş Hek Fak Derg 2017;27:43–7.
• Referans6. de Castro Albuquerque R, De Abreu Polleto L T, Fontana R H B T S, Cimini Jr C A. Stress analysis of an upper central incisor restored with different posts. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:936–43.
• Referans7. Nakamura T, Ohyama T, Waki T. Stress analysis of endodontically treated anterior teeth restored with different types of post material. Dent Mater J 2006;25:145–50.
• Referans8. Lanza A, Aversa R, Rengo S. 3D FEA of cemented steel, glass, and carbon posts in a maxillary incisor. Dent Mater 2005;21:709– 15.
• Referans9. Pegoretti A, Fambri L, Zappini G. Finite element analysis of a glass fibre reinforced composite endodontic post. Biomaterials 2002;23:2667–82.
• Referans10. Elnaghy AM. Effect of QM ix irrigant on bond strength of glass fiber posts to root dentine. Int Endod J 2014;47:280–9.
• Referans11. Alexa. YouTube.com competitive analysis, marketing mix and traffic. Available at: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/YouTube. com. Accessed April 8, 2020.
• Referans12. Knösel M, Jung K. Informational value and bias of videos related to orthodontics screened on a video-sharing web site. Angle Orthod 2011;81:532–39.
• Referans13. Ignatowicz A, Slowther A M, Elder P, Bryce C, Hamilton K, Huxley C, et al. Ethical implications of digital communication for the patient-clinician relationship: analysis of interviews with clinicians and young adults with long term conditions (the LYNC study). BMC Medical Ethics 2018;19:1–9.
• Referans14. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis 2016;22:202–8.
• Referans15. Hesse B W, Moser R P, Rutten L J F, Kreps G L. The health information national trends survey: research from the baseline. J Health Commun 2006;11:vii–xvi.
• Referans16. Kim H, Nakamura C, Zeng-Treitler Q. Assessment of pictographs developed through a participatory design process using an online survey tool. J. Med. Internet Res 2009;11:e1129.
• Referans17. Doğramacı E J, Rossi-Fedele G. The quality of information on the Internet on orthodontic retainer wear: a cross-sectional study. J Orthod 2016;43:47–58.
• Referans18. Sezici Y L, Gediz M, Dindaroğlu F. Is YouTube an adequate patient resource about orthodontic retention? A cross-sectional analysis of content and quality. AJODO 2022;161: e72–e79.
• Referans19. Abukaraky A, Hamdan AA, Ameera MN, Nasief M, Hassona Y. Quality of YouTube videos on dental implants. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2018;23:463–8
• Referans20. Koller U, Waldstein W, Schatz K-D, Windhager R. YouTube provides irrelevant information for the diagnosis and treatment of hip arthritis. Int Orthop 2016;40:1995–2002.
• Referans21. Burns LE, Abbassi E, Qian X, Mecham A, Simeteys P, Mays KA. YouTube use among dental students for learning clinical procedures: a multi-institutional study. J Dent Educ 2020;84:1151– 8.
• Referans22. Hatipoğlu Ş, Gaş S. Is information for surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion available on YouTube reliable? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;78: 1017–e1.
• Referans23. Hegarty E, Campbell C, Grammatopoulos E, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. YouTube™ as an information resource for orthognathic surgery. J Orthod 2017;44:90–6.
• Referans24. Ajumobi AB, Malakouti M, Bullen A, Ahaneku H, Lunsford TN. YouTubeTM as a source of instructional videos on bowel preparation: a content analysis. J Cancer Educ 2016;31:755–9.
• Referans25. López-Jornet P, Pons-Fuster E, Ruiz-Roca JA. YOUTUBE videos on oral care of the organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Support Care Cancer 2017;25:1097–1101.
• Referans26. Heydecke G, Peters MC. The restoration of endodontically treated, single-rooted teeth with cast or direct posts and cores: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:380–6
• Referans27. Setzer FC, Kim S. Comparison of long-term survival of implants and endodontically treated teeth. J Dent Res 2014;93:19–26.
• Referans28. Naumann M, Neuhaus KW, Kolpin M, Seemann R. Why, when, and how general practitioners restore endodontically treated teeth: a representative survey in Germany. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:253–9.
• Referans29. Ventola, C. Lee. Social media and health care professionals: benefits, risks, and best practices. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2014;39:491.