Evaluating the Accuracy and Educational Standards of YouTube Videos on Pterygoid Implantology

Abstract

Background and Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the content and quality of YouTube videos of pterygoid implants. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted on YouTube using the keyword “pterygoid implant,” limited to Englishlanguage videos uploaded in the last five years. A total of 130 videos were analyzed based on content, source, viewer engagement, and educational value. Videos were assessed using the DISCERN tool, Global Quality (GQ) scale, and a 16-point content checklist. Demographic characteristics, including the number of views, likes/ dislikes, comments, video duration, number of days after upload, and the uploaders and target audiences of the videos, were evaluated. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26. Data were analyzed using independent samples t-test, Mann– Whitney U test, chi-square test, Pearson correlation, and Spearman correlation analyses according to data distribution. Results: Most videos originated from Asia (67.7%) and were primarily intended for dental professionals (97.7%). Only 3.8% of videos had high content quality, while 58.3% classified as low quality. DISCERN and GQ scores indicated that overall educational standards were poor. Company-uploaded videos had the lowest quality, while university-generated videos showed relatively higher quality (p < 0.01). A significant correlation was found between video popularity (in terms of views and likes) and content quality (p < 0.01), although some low-quality videos received high views. Conclusion: The educational content of YouTube videos on pterygoid implants is generally inadequate, with a notable lack of patient-centered resources. Given the platform’s openaccess nature and influence on decision-making, healthcare professionals should play a more active role in producing and promoting reliable, evidence-based video content. Additionally, YouTube should consider implementing content verification and ranking mechanisms to improve the reliability of health-related information.

Keywords

• Pterygoid implants
• YouTube videos
• content
• quality

References

1. 1. Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, Ouazzani W, Claros P, Potau JM et al. The long-term use of zygomatic implants: a 10-year clinical and radiographic report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014; 16: 447–459.
2. 2. Sabri H, Barootchi S, Heck T, Wang HL. Single-rooted extraction socket classification: a systematic review and proposal of a new classification system based on morphologic and patient-related factors. J Esthet Restor Dent 2023; 35: 168–182.
3. 3. Nyström E, Nilson H, Gunne J, Lundgren S. Reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla with interpositional bone grafting/Le Fort I osteotomy and endosteal implants: a 11–16 year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 38: 1–6.
4. 4. Blanc O, Shilo D, Weitman E, Capucha T, Rachmiel A. Extramaxillary zygomatic implants: an alternative approach for the reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2020; 10: 127–132.
5. 5. Bidra AS, May GW, Tharp GE, Chambers MS. Pterygoid implants for maxillofacial rehabilitation of a patient with a bilateral maxillectomy defect. J Oral Implantol 2013; 39: 91–97.
6. 6. Balaji V, Lambodharan R, Manikandan D, Deenadayalan S. Pterygoid implant for atrophic posterior maxilla. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2017; 9: S261.
7. 7. Araujo RZ, Santiago Júnior JF, Cardoso CL, Benites Condezo AF, Moreira Júnior R, Curi MM. Clinical outcomes of pterygoid implants: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2019; 47: 651–660.
8. 8. Curi MM, Cardoso CL, Braga Ribeiro KC. Retrospective study of pterygoid implants in the atrophic posterior maxilla: implant and prosthesis survival rates up to 3 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30.

9. 9. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis 2016; 22: 202–208.
10. 10. Kaptı HB, Erdem B, Kaptı HB. Evaluation of the reliability and quality of YouTube videos on congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Cureus 2023; 15: e36365.
11. 11. Yeung AWK. Content analysis of YouTube videos on radiographic anatomy on dental panoramic images. Healthcare 2022; 10: 1382.
12. 12. 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.
13. 13. Ozdemir Kacer E, Kacer I. Evaluating the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on scabies in children: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One 2024; 19: e0310508.
14. 14. Yildirim G, Kocaelli HA. Assessment of the content and quality of YouTube videos related to zygomatic implants: a content–quality analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2023; 25: 605–612.
15. 15. Sezici YL, Gediz M, Dindaroğlu F. Is YouTube an adequate patient resource about orthodontic retention? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2022; 161: 72–79.
16. 16. Şallı GA, Egil E. Are YouTube videos useful as a source of information for oral care of leukemia patients? Quintessence Int 2020; 51: 78–85.
17. 17. Gaikwad A, Rachh P, Raut K. Critical evaluation of YouTube videos regarding the all-on-4 dental implant treatment concept: a content-quality analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2025; 134: 1198.
18. 18. Hegarty E, et al. YouTube as an information resource for orthognathic surgery. J Orthod 2017; 44: 90–96.
19. 19. Doğramacı EJ, Rossi-Fedele G. The quality of information on the Internet on orthodontic retainer wear: a cross-sectional study. J Orthod 2016; 43: 47–58.
20. 20. Hatipoğlu Ş, Gaş S. Is information for surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion available on YouTube reliable? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020; 78: 1017.e1–1017.e10.
21. 21. Kurian N, Varghese KG , Daniel S , Varghese VS, Kaur T, Verma R. Are YouTube videos on complete arch fixed implant-supported prostheses useful for patient education? J Prosthet Dent 2024; 131: 684–688.
22. 22. Özkan E, Acar AH. YouTube as a source of information for patients regarding dental implant failure: a content analysis. J Craniofac Surg 2022; 33: 2100–2103.
23. 23. Yagci F. Evaluation of YouTube as an information source for denture care. J Prosthet Dent 2023; 129: 623–629.
24. 24. Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M, Shoufan A. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ 2022; 22: 382.