EVALUATION OF INTERNET DATA ON ORTHODONTICS IN TURKEY: A GOOGLE TREND ANALYSIS

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of study is to examine the interest in orthodontics in the last 5 years using Google Trends data in Turkey.

Material and Methods: On December 6, 2019, the Google Trends application was searched for the last five years. Search results were recorded separately for all keywords and separately for 52 cities in Turkey with sufficient data. The mean of all search results is taken and a Google Trends Value(GTV) is obtained for the cities. These data are correlated with population, Gross Domestic Product(GDP) in cities. On the other hand, GDP is regulated in dollars according to the data announced by the Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat). Pearson correlation test was used for correlation values between Population, GDP with Google Trend values.

Results: According to the table, the highest GT values were observed in Bursa (95,6), Antalya (73,3), Ankara (70,3), Konya (67) and Adana (59,3); lowest GT values were observed in Kırıkkale (8,3), Sivas (10), Erzurum (11), Kırklareli (11,3), Afyonkarahisar (11,6). According to the table, a positive correlation was found between GT values with both population and GDP values. However, while the positive correlation between GT values and population was not statistically significant (p>0.05), the positive correlation between GT values and GDP values was statistically significant (p<0.05).

Conclusion: In our country, there is no significant relationship between public interest in orthodontics and population. However, there is a significant positive correlation between the Gross Domestic Product and the interest in orthodontics.

Keywords

• Google Trends
• Google Trends
• Google Trends
• Google Trends
• internet data
• internet data
• internet data
• internet data
• orthodontics

TÜRKİYE'DE ORTODONTİ İLE İLGİLİ İNTERNET VERİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: GOOGLE TRENDS ANALİZİ

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye'de son 5 yılda ortodontiye olan ilgiyi Google Trends verilerini kullanarak incelemektir.

Materyal ve Metod: 6 Aralık 2019'da Google Trends uygulaması ile son beş yıl için arama yapıldı. Arama sonuçları tüm anahtar kelimeler için ayrı ayrı ve Türkiye'de 52 il için yeterli veri ile ayrı ayrı kaydedildi. Tüm arama sonuçlarının ortalaması alındı ve şehirler için bir Google Trends Değeri (GTV) elde edildi. Bu veriler şehirlerdeki nüfus, Gayri Safi Yurtiçi Hasıla (GSYİH) ile ilişkilendirildi. Öte yandan GSYİH, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) tarafından açıklanan verilere göre dolar bazında düzenlenmektedir. Nüfus, GSYİH ile Google Trend değerleri arasındaki korelasyon değerleri için Pearson korelasyon testi kullanıldı.

Bulgular: Tabloya göre en yüksek GT değerleri Bursa (95,6), Antalya (73,3), Ankara (70,3), Konya (67) ve Adana (59,3); en düşük GT değerleri ise Kırıkkale (8,3), Sivas (10), Erzurum (11), Kırklareli (11,3), Afyonkarahisar (11,6) illerinde görülmüştür. Tabloya göre hem nüfus hem de GSYİH değerleri ile GT değerleri arasında pozitif bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Ancak, GT değerleri ile popülasyon arasındaki pozitif korelasyon istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değilken (p>0.05), GT değerleri ile GDP değerleri arasındaki pozitif korelasyon istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı (p<0.05).

Sonuç: Ülkemizde ortodontiye olan ilgi ile nüfus arasında anlamlı bir ilişki yoktur. Ancak Gayri Safi Yurtiçi Hasıla ile ortodontiye ilgi arasında anlamlı bir pozitif ilişki vardır.

Keywords

• Google Trends
• internet data
• ortodonti

References

1. 1. Tamer G. Demographic Characteristics Affecting Service Demand İn Private Health Institutions; Aesthetic Medical Centers Example. International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Management Inquiries (EMI), 2(3), 91-105.
2. 2. Germa A, Kaminski M, Nabet C. Impact of social and economic characteristics on orthodontic treatment among children and teenagers in France. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2010;38(2):171–179.
3. 3. Van Wezel NA, Bos A, Prahl C. Expectations of treatment and satisfaction with dentofacial appearance in patients applying for orthodontic treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2015;147(6), 698-703.
4. 4. Pietila I. Delivery, outcome, and costs of orthodontic care in Finnish health centres. 2010;Turun Ylıopisto University of Turku, Thesis, Turku.
5. 5. Bresnahan BW, Kiyak HA, Masters SH, McGorray SP, Lincoln A, King G. Quality of life and economic burdens of malocclusion in U.S. patients enrolled in Medicaid. The Journal of American Dental Association. 2010;141(10): 1202-12.
6. 6. Kim Y. Study on the perception of orthodontic treatment according to age: A questionnaire survey. Korean J Orthod. 2017;47:215–221.
7. 7. Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, Moray LJ. Prevalence ofmalocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in theUnited States: estimates from the NHANES IIIsurvey. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg1998;13:97–106.
8. 8. Chestnutt IG, Burden DJ, Steele JG, Pitts NB, Nuttall NM, Morris AJ. The orthodontic condition of chil-dren in the United Kingdom, 2003. Br Dent J2006;200:609–12.

9. 9. Kamak H, Çağlaroğlu,M., Çatalbaş,B., Keklik,H. iç Anadolu Bölgesi Ortodontik Tedavi İhtiyacının ICON İndeksi Kullanılarak Değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniv.Diş.Hek.Fak.Derg 2012;22:149-153.
10. 10. Ertaş EB. IOTN ve PAR indekslerinde göre Türkiyedeki ortodontik tedavi standardının değerlendirilmesi. Konya; 1996.
11. 11. Güray E, Orhan M, Ertas E, Doruk C. Konya Yöresi ilkokul Çocuklarında Treatment Priority Index (TPI) Uygulaması (Epidemiyolojik Çalışma). Türk Ortodonti Dergisi 1994;7:195-200.
12. 12. Kılıçoğlu H. 7-12 Yaş okul çocuklarında ortodontik tedavi ihtiyacı ve maloklüzyon şiddetinin incelenmesi. Türk Ortodonti Dergisi 2004;17:83-88.
13. 13. Kılıçoğlu H, Arman S, Par C, Çifter M, Akar B. İstanbul Üniversitesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalına Başvuran Hastaların Profilinin İncelenmesi. Türk Ortodonti Dergisi 2003;16:167-174.
14. 14. Ugur T, Ciger S, Aksoy A, Telli A. An epidemiological survey using the Treatment Priority Index (TPI). Eur J Orthod 1998;20:189-193.
15. 15. Noll D. Mahon B. Shroff B. Carrico C. Lindauer SJ. Twitter analysis of the orthodontic patient experience with braces vs Invisalign. Angle Orthod. 2017;87:377–383.
16. 16. Al Ghamdi KM. Moussa NA. Internet use by the public to search for health-related information. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81:363–373.
17. 17. J. Allem EC, Leas TL, Caputi M, Dredze BM, Althouse SM, Noar JW. The Charlie Sheen effect on rapid in-home human immunodeficiency virus test sales Prev. Sci., 18 2017; pp. 541-544
18. 18. Ayers JW, Althouse BM, Johnson M, Cohen JE. Circaseptan (weekly) rhythms in smoking cessation considerations. JAMA Intern. Med. 2014;174, 146–148.
19. 19. Zotti F, Zotti R, Albanese M, Nocini PF, Paganelli C. Implementing post-orthodontic compliance among adolescents wearing removable retainers through Whatsapp: a pilot study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019 Apr 23;13:609-615.
20. 20. Papadimitriou A, Kakali L, Pazera P, Doulis I, Kloukos D. Social media and orthodontic treatment from the patient's perspective: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2019 May 20. pii: cjz029.
21. 21. Lena Y, Dindaroğlu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: A YouTube™ video analysis. Angle Orthod. 2018 Mar;88(2):208-214.
22. 22. Noll D, Mahon B, Shroff B, Carrico C, Lindauer SJ. Twitter analysis of the orthodontic patient experience with braces vs Invisalign. Angle Orthod. 2017 May;87(3):377-383.
23. 23. Chan A, Antoun JS, Morgaine KC, Farella M. Accounts of bullying on Twitter in relation to dentofacial features and orthodontic treatment. J Oral Rehabil. 2017 Apr;44(4):244-250.
24. 24. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics-e-book. Elsevier Health Sciences 2014.
25. 25. DiBiase AT, Sandler PJ. Malocclusion, orthodontics and bullying. Dental update, 2001:28(9),464-466.
26. 26. Kuo E, Miller RJ. Automated custom-manufacturing technology in orthodontics. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 2003:123(5), 578-581.
27. 27. Melkos AB. Advances in digital technology and orthodontics: a reference to the Invisalign method. Medical science monitor, 2005:11(5), PI39-PI42.
28. 28. McCrostie HS. Lingual orthodontics: the future. Seminars in Orthodontics 2006: 12,(3); 211-214.
29. 29. Almuzian M, Gardner A. Adult orthodontics part 1: special considerations in treatment. Orthodontic Update, 2014:7(3), 89-92.
30. 30. McDonald F, Cobourne M. Adult orthodontics: perils and pitfalls. Progress in orthodontics, 2007:8(2), 308-313.
31. 31. Malik OH, McMullin A, Waring DT. Invisible orthodontics part 1: Invisalign. Dental update, 2013:40(3), 203-215.
32. 32. Naik VR, Chavan P. Invisalign: The invisible braces. International Journal of Contemporary Dentistry, 2010:1(2).
33. 33. Zhang N, Bai Y, Ding X, Zhang Y. Preparation and characterization of thermoplastic materials for invisible orthodontics. Dental materials journal, 2011:1111220216.
34. 34. McMullin A, Waring DT, Malik OH. Invisible orthodontics part 2: lingual appliance treatment. Dental update, 2013:40(5), 391-402.
35. 35. Waring DT, McMullin A, Malik OH. Invisible orthodontics part 3: Aesthetic orthodontic brackets. Dental update, 2013:40(7), 555-563.
36. 36. Panula K, Keski-Nisula L, Keski-Nisula K, Oikarinen K, Keski-Nisula S. Costs of surgical-orthodontic treatment in community hospital care: an analysis of the different phases of treatment. The International journal of adult orthodontics and orthognathic surgery, 2002:17(4), 297-306.
37. 37. Richmond S, Dunstan F, Phillips C, Daniels C, Durning P, Leahy F. Measuring the cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of orthodontic care. World journal of orthodontics, 2005:6(2).
38. 38. Richmond S, Phillips CJ, Dunstan F, Daniels C, Durning P, Leahy F. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of orthodontic provision. Dental update, 2004:31(3), 146-152.
39. 39. Deans J, Playle R, Durning P, Richmond S. An exploratory study of the cost-effectiveness of orthodontic care in seven European countries. The European Journal of Orthodontics, 2008:31(1), 90-94.
40. 40. Krishnan V, Davidovitch ZE. Integrated clinical orthodontics. John Wiley & Sons 2012.
41. 41. Rose TP, Jivraj S, Chee W. The role of orthodontics in implant dentistry. British dental journal, 2006:201(12),753.
42. 42. Mondria J, Wu T. Imperfect financial integration and asymmetric information: competing explanations of the home bias puzzle? Canadian Journal of Economics 2013;46:310–37.
43. 43. Mishra P, Newhouse D. “Does health aid matter ?” Journal of Health Economics, Corrected Proof 2009.