İmplant Konulu YouTube Videolarının Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2021, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 186 - 192, 20.09.2021

Arzu Yıldırım Bicer Zeynep Fatma Zor , Nuray Bağcı , İlkay Peker

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı YouTube’da Türkçe olarak bulunan ‘diş implantı’ konulu videoların içeriğini değerlendirmektir.
Materyal ve Metot: YouTube videolarında ‘diş implantı’ kelimesi ile Türkçe olarak arama yapıldı ve ilk 50 video incelendi. Videoların süresi, görüntülenme sayıları ve yüklenme kaynakları kaydedildi. Videoların içeriğini değerlendirmek için diş implantı ile ilgili; implantın tanımı, endikasyonları, kontrendikasyonları, avantajları, dezavantajları, işlem hakkında bilgi içermesi, komplikasyonları, implantın prognozu, ömrü, maliyeti ve uzmanlık gerekliliği gibi kriterlerden yararlanıldı. Bu kriterlerin varlığına göre videolar üç farklı (düşük, orta, yüksek) düzeyde yararlılık grubuna ayrıldı.
Bulgular: Video sürelerinin uzunluğu 1,02 ile 20,56 dakika arasında, görüntülenme sayısı ise 5 ile 518335 arasında değişmekteydi. Videoların yararlılık gruplarına göre dağılımı %62’si düşük düzeyde yararlı, %34’ü orta düzeyde yararlı, %2’si yüksek düzeyde yararlı şeklindeydi. Video süresi ile yararlılık grupları arasında istatiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulundu (p<0,05).
Sonuç: Youtube’da yer alan videoların çoğunluğunun düşük düzeyde yararlı olduğu tespit edildi.

Keywords

diş, implant, video

Evaluation of YouTube Videos on Dental Implant

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the content of videos on "dental implant" in Turkish on YouTube.
Materials and Methods: YouTube videos were searched with the word 'dental implant' in Turkish and first 50 videos were examined. Duration, view numbers and upload sources of the videos were recorded. To evaluate the content of the videos about dental implant; criteria such as the definition of the implant, its indications, contraindications, advantages, disadvantages, information about the procedure, complications, prognosis of the implant, its life span, cost, and expertise requirement were used. According to the existence of these criteria, the videos were separated into three different (low, medium, high) level useful groups.
Results: The average duration of the videos was 8.5±8.7 minutes, and the average number of views was 18026±62297.1. The distribution of videos according to the useful groups was 62% useful at low level, 34% useful at medium level, 2% useful at high level. A statistically significant difference was found between video duration with useful groups and upload sources (p<0.05).
Conclusion: It has found that majority of videos on YouTube are useful at low level.

Keywords

tooth, implant, video

References

• Smeets R, Stadlinger B, Schwarz F, et al. Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration. BioMed Research International. 2016;2016.
• Oshida Y, Tuna EB, Aktören O. ve ark. Dental implant systems. International journal of molecular sciences. 2010;11(4):1580-678.
• Le Guéhennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, et al. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dental materials. 2007;23(7):844-54.
• Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, et al. Survival of dental implants placed in sites of previously failed implants. Clinical oral implants research. 2017;28(11):1348-53.
• Papaspyridakos P, Mokti M, Chen CJ, et al. Implant and prosthodontic survival rates with implant fixed complete dental prostheses in the edentulous mandible after at least 5 years: a systematic review. Clinical implant dentistry and related research. 2014;16(5):705-17.
• Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP s) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clinical oral implants research. 2012;23:22-38.
• Ali S, Woodmason K, Patel N. The quality of online information regarding dental implants. British dental journal. 2014;217(9):E16-E.
• Abukaraky A, Hamdan AA, Ameera M-N, et al. Quality of YouTube TM videos on dental implants. Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal. 2018;23(4):e463.
• Kessels RP. Patients’ memory for medical information. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2003;96(5):219-22.
• Van der Waal I, de Bree R, Brakenhoff R, et al. Early diagnosis in primary oral cancer: is it possible? Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal. 2011;16(3):e300-e5.
• López-Jornet P, Camacho-Alonso F. The quality of internet sites providing information relating to oral cancer. Oral oncology. 2009;45(9):e95-e8.
• Hegarty E, Campbell C, Grammatopoulos E, et al. YouTube™ as an information resource for orthognathic surgery. Journal of orthodontics. 2017;44(2):90-6.
• Neiger BL, Thackeray R, Burton SH, et al. Evaluating social media’s capacity to develop engaged audiences in health promotion settings: use of Twitter metrics as a case study. Health promotion practice. 2013;14(2):157-62.
• Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, et al. Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public's response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e82469.
• Ho A, McGrath C, Mattheos N. Social media patient testimonials in implant dentistry: information or misinformation? Clinical oral implants research. 2017;28(7):791-800.
• Farnan JM, Paro JA, Higa J, et al. The YouTube generation: implications for medical professionalism. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 2008;51(4):517-24.
• Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, et al. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral diseases. 2016;22(3):202-8.
• Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic medicine. 2006;81(3):207-12.
• Keelan J, Pavri-Garcia V, Tomlinson G, et al. YouTube as a source of information on immunization: a content analysis. jama. 2007;298(21):2482-4.
• Tian Y. Organ donation on Web 2.0: content and audience analysis of organ donation videos on YouTube. Health communication. 2010;25(3):238-46.
• Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis—a wakeup call? The Journal of rheumatology. 2012;39(5):899-903.
• Pandey A, Patni N, Singh M, et al. YouTube as a source of information on the H1N1 influenza pandemic. American journal of preventive medicine. 2010;38(3):e1-e3.
• Steinberg PL, Wason S, Stern JM, et al. YouTube as source of prostate cancer information. Urology. 2010;75(3):619-22.
• Murugiah K, Vallakati A, Rajput K, et al. YouTube as a source of information on cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2011;82(3):332-4.
• López-Jornet P, Camacho-Alonso F. The quality of internet information relating to oral leukoplakia. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010;15(5):727-31.
• Nason K, Donnelly A, Duncan H. YouTube as a patient‐information source for root canal treatment. International endodontic journal. 2016;49(12):1194-200.
• Kılınç DD, Sayar G. Assessment of reliability of youtube videos on orthodontics. Turkish journal of orthodontics. 2019;32(3):145.
• Passos KKM, da Silva Leonel ACL, Bonan PRF, et al. Quality of information about oral cancer in Brazilian Portuguese available on Google, Youtube, and Instagram. Medicina Oral, Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal. 2020;25(3):e346.
• Delli K, Livas C, Vissink A, et al. Is YouTube useful as a source of information for Sjögren's syndrome? Oral Diseases. 2016;22(3):196-201.
• Nason Gj, Tareen F, Quinn F. Hydrocele on the web: an evaluation of Internet-based information. Scandinavian journal of urology. 2013;47(2):152-7.
• Morr S, Shanti N, Carrer A, et al. Quality of information concerning cervical disc herniation on the Internet. The Spine Journal. 2010;10(4):350-4.
• Yao J, Tang H, McGrath C, et al. Patients' expectations to dental implant: a systematic review. Journal of Dental Research. 2014.
• Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, et al. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 1999;53(2):105-11.