Analyzing Content and Quality of YouTube™ Videos on Removal of Amalgam Fillings

Year 2022, , 423 - 430, 30.06.2022

Mehmet Buldur , Fatma Aytaç Bal

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.960426

Abstract

Objective. The objective of this study was to analyze the information quality and content of operational videos available on YouTube™ regarding amalgam fillings removal.
Methods. Videos were determined using the words “Removal of amalgam fillings” and “Replacement of amalgam fillings” in the YouTube™ search section. 85 videos were included for analysis. Demographics of videos, viewers’ interactions, and viewing rates were evaluated. The videos were analyzed in two parameters in terms of Audio-visual quality and the SMART (Safe Mercury Amalgam Removal Technique) protocol steps.
Results. It was determined that dentists accounts ranked first (62%) in the distribution of video sources. While only 19% of the videos were of “Excellent” audio-visual quality, 49% were rated as “Moderate” and 33% were rated as “Poor”. In the SMART evaluation, while only 10% of the videos got the “Maximal Useful” score, the majority of the videos got the “Slightly Useful” score (58%). There was no statistical relationship between the “View Rate” and “Interaction Index” variables of the videos (p> 0.05).
Conclusions. Operational videos about the removal of dental amalgam fillings should be uploaded to YouTube™ after approval by the experts of the subject. Students should be warned about videos which contain insufficient information. Videos should be prepared in line with current information in the literature.

Keywords

Dental amalgam, E-learning, Mercury, Social media, Toxicity

References

• [1] Biggs TC, Bird JH, Harries PG, Salib RJ. YouTube as a source of information on rhinosinusitis: the good, the bad and the ugly. J Laryngol Otol. 2013; 127(8):749-54.
• [2] Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015; 21(3):173-94.
• [3] AlGhamdi KM, Moussa NA. Internet use by the public to search for health-related information. Int J Med Inform. 2012; 81(6):363-73.
• [4] Atkinson NL, Saperstein SL, Pleis J. Using the internet for health-related activities: findings from a national probability sample. J Med Internet Res. 2009; 11(1):e4.
• [5] Alexa. Top 500 Global Sites. 2013 https://www.alexa.com/ topsites [Internet]. [cited 2021 May 1]
• [6] Sampson M, Cumber J, Li C, Pound CM, Fuller A, Harrison D. A systematic review of methods for studying consumer health YouTube videos, with implications for systematic reviews. PeerJ. 2013; 1:e147.
• [7] Nason K, Donnelly A, Duncan HF. YouTube as a patient information source for root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2016; 49(12):1194-1200.
• [8] Sorensen JA, Pusz MD, Brietzke SE. YouTube as an information source for pediatric adenotonsillectomy and ear tube surgery. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; 78(1):65-70.
• [9] Keelan J, Pavri-Garcia V, Tomlinson G, Wilson K. YouTube as a source of information on immunization: a content analysis. JAMA. 2007; 298(21):2482-4.
• [10] Al-Silwadi FM, Gill DS, Petrie A, Cunningham SJ. Effect of social media in improving knowledge among patients having fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: A single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 148(2):231-7.
• [11] Ho A, McGrath C, Mattheos N. Social media patient testimonials in implant dentistry: information or misinformation? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28(7):791-800.
• [12] Simsek H, Buyuk SK, Cetinkaya E, Tural M, Koseoglu MS. “How I whiten my teeth”: YouTube™ as a patient information resource for teeth whitening. BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20(1):183.
• [13] Gaş S, Zincir ÖÖ, Bozkurt AP. Are YouTube Videos Useful for Patients Interested in Botulinum Toxin for Bruxism? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 77(9):1776-83.
• [14] Hegarty E, Campbell C, Grammatopoulos E, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. YouTube™ as an information resource for orthognathic surgery. J Orthod. 2017; 44(2):90-96.
• [15] Warwick D, Young M, Palmer J, Ermel RW. Mercury vapor volatilization from particulate generated from dental amalgam removal with a high speed dental drill a significant source of exposure. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2019; 14:22.
• [16] FDI. Mercury hygiene guidance [Internet]. Geneva: FDI World Dental Federation. Available from: https://www.fdiworlddental.org/mercury-hygiene-guidance (Revised October 2007)
• [17] Brownawell AM, Berent S, Brent RL, Bruckner JV, Doull J, Gershwin EM, Hood RD, Matanoski GM, Rubin R, Weiss B, Karol MH. The potential adverse health effects of dental amalgam. Toxicol Rev. 2005; 24(1):1-10.
• [18] Mercury in health care. World Health Organisation. 2005. [Internet]. [cited 2021 May 1] Available from https:// www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/medicalwaste/mercurypolpaper.pdf.
• [19] The Safe Mercury Amalgam Removal Technique (SMART) [Internet]. [cited 2021 May 1]. The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. 2016. Available from: https://iaomt.org/resources/safe-removal-amalgam-fillings/
• [20] Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, Minhas D, Eure M, Kats M. Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public’s response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS One. 2013; 8(12):e82469.
• [21] Abukaraky A, Hamdan AA, Ameera MN, Nasief M, Hassona Y. Quality of YouTube TM videos on dental implants. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2018; 23(4):e463-e468.
• [22] Yüce MÖ, Adalı E, Kanmaz B. An analysis of YouTube videos as educational resources for dental practitioners to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Ir J Med Sci. 202; 190(1):19-26.
• [23] Ustdal G, Guney AU. YouTube as a source of information about orthodontic clear aligners. Angle Orthod. 2020; 90(3):419-24.
• [24] Bozkurt AP, Aras I. Cleft Lip and Palate YouTube Videos: Content Usefulness and Sentiment Analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021; 58(3):362-68.
• [25] Özbay Y, Çırakoğlu NY. YouTube as an information source for instrument separation in root canal treatment. Restor Dent Endod. 2021; 46(1):e8.
• [26] Anusavice K, Phillips R, Shen C. Phillip’s Science of Dental Materials. 12th edition. Missouri: Elsevier Ltd. Restorative Dentistry. 2013.
• [27] Rathore M, Singh A, Pant VA. The dental amalgam toxicity fear: a myth or actuality. Toxicol Int. 2012; 19(2):81-8.
• [28] Mjör IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE. Selection of restorative materials in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand. 1999; 57(5):257-62.
• [29] Warwick R, O’Connor A, Lamey B. Mercury vapour exposure during dental student training in amalgam removal. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2013; 8(1):27