Evaluation of YouTubeTM as an Information Source for Indirect Restorations: Cross-Sectional Evaluation

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the usefulness and quality of popular videos about indirect restorations shared by different uploaders on YouTube and to evaluate the demographic characteristics of the videos. Materials and Methods: The most commonly used terms related directly to indirect posterior restorations were determined as "inlay" and "onlay" in this topic. Of the 400 videos (200 for each topic), 40 videos were selected for analysis. Evaluations were made for each video in terms of the following: (1) number of views, (2) number of comments, (3) days since up-load, (4) number of ’likes’, (5) Viewing rate; [(number of views/number of days since upload) * 100%], (6) Viewer interaction, (7) Usefulness Index score, (8) 5-point global quality scale (GQS) criteria. Results: No statistically significant difference was found among usefulness scores and video sources. (p=0.754). Based on the usefulness score, 20% were classified as good, 40% as poor, and 40% as moderate. No statistically significant difference was found among primary purpose of videos and video sources. (p=0.754). The greatest number of videos (42.5%) was uploaded by dentists (n=17). When the primary purpose is evaluated for the videos uploaded by dentists, the highest numerical value was determined as education for health professionals (52.9%) (n=9). Conclusions: The contents of YouTube videos regarding the indications and production stages of inlay and onlay restorations need to be revised according to our evaluation criteria. The number of educational videos providing detailed content and information to patients should be increased. Keywords: Indirect restoration, Inlay, Onlay, Video analysis, YouTube

Keywords

• Indirect restoration
• Inlay
• Onlay
• Video analysis
• YouTube

References

1. Spreafico RC, Krejci I, Dietschi D. Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo. J Dent. 2005;33(6):499–507. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2004.11.009.
2. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Thompson VP, Ginell JC. [Clinical investigation of a posterior composite materials after 5 and 8 years]. Quintessenz. 1991;42(7):1067–1080.
3. Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res. 1987;66(11):1636–1639. doi:10.1177/00220345870660110601.
4. Collares K, Corrêa MB, Laske M, Kramer E, Reiss B, Moraes RR, et al. A practice-based research network on the survival of ceramic inlay/onlay restorations. Dent Mater. 2016;32(5):687–694. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2016.02.006.
5. Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: three-year clinical results. Br Dent J. 1995;179(9):343–349. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4808919.
6. Barone A, Derchi G, Rossi A, Marconcini S, Covani U. Longitudinal clinical evaluation of bonded composite inlays: a 3-year study. Quintessence Int. 2008;39(1):65–71.
7. Duquia Rde C, Osinaga PW, Demarco FF, de VHL, Conceição EN. Cervical microleakage in MOD restorations: in vitro comparison of indirect and direct composite. Oper Dent. 2006;31(6):682–687. doi:10.2341/05-132.
8. Angeletaki F, Gkogkos A, Papazoglou E, Kloukos D. Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;53:12–21. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.011.

9. Ferraris F. Posterior indirect adhesive restorations (PIAR): preparation designs and adhesthetics clinical protocol. Int J Esthet Dent. 2017;12(4):482–502.
10. AlGhamdi KM, Moussa NA. Internet use by the public to search for health-related information. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(6):363–373. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.12.004.
11. Stellefson M, Chaney B, Ochipa K, Chaney D, Haider Z, Hanik B, et al. YouTube as a source of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient education: a social media content analysis. Chron Respir Dis. 2014;11(2):61–71. doi:10.1177/1479972314525058.
12. Yagci F. Evaluation of YouTube as an information source for denture care. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129(4):623–629. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.045.
13. 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(4):e463–e468. doi:10.4317/medoral.22447.
14. Dias da Silva MA, Pereira AC, Walmsley AD. Who is providing dental education content via YouTube? Br Dent J. 2019;226(6):437–440. doi:10.1038/s41415-019-0046-8.
15. Kılınç DD, Sayar G. Assessment of reliability of YouTube videos on orthodontics. Turk J Orthod. 2019;32(3):145–150. doi:10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2019.18064.
16. Knösel M, Jung K, Bleckmann A. YouTube, dentistry, and dental education. J Dent Educ. 2011;75(12):1558–68.
17. Ozdal Zincir O, Bozkurt AP, Gas S. Potential patient education of YouTube videos related to wisdom tooth surgical removal. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(5):e481–e484. doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000005573.
18. 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. doi:10.1186/s12903-020-01172-w.
19. Abdoli S, Hessler D, Vora A, Smither B, Stuckey H. Descriptions of diabetes burnout from individuals with type 1 diabetes: an analysis of YouTube videos. Diabet Med. 2020;37(8):1344–1351. doi:10.1111/dme.14047.
20. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis. 2016;22(3):202–208. doi:10.1111/odi.12434.
21. 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. doi:10.1080/14653125.2017.1319010.
22. 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. doi:10.1111/clr.12883.
23. Lena Y, Dindaroğlu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: A YouTube™ video analysis. Angle Orthod. 2018;88(2):208–214. doi:10.2319/090717-602.1.
24. Ustdal G, Guney AU. YouTube as a source of information about orthodontic clear aligners. Angle Orthod. 2020;90(3):419–424. doi:10.2319/072419-491.1.
25. Ozdede M, Peker I. Analysis of dentistry YouTube videos related to COVID-19. Braz Dent J. 2020;31(4):392–398. doi:10.1590/0103-6440202003767.
26. D’Arcangelo C, Vanini L, Casinelli M, Frascaria M, De Angelis F, Vadini M, et al. Adhesive cementation of indirect composite inlays and onlays: a literature review. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015;36(8):570–7; quiz 578.
27. Dietschi D, Spreafico R. Evidence-based concepts and procedures for bonded inlays and onlays. Part I. Historical perspectives and clinical rationale for a biosubstitutive approach. Int J Esthet Dent. 2015;10(2):210–227.
28. Rocca GT, Krejci I. Bonded indirect restorations for posterior teeth: from cavity preparation to provisionalization. Quintessence Int. 2007;38(5):371–379.
29. 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. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082469.
30. ElKarmi R, Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Scully C. YouTube as a source for parents’ education on early childhood caries. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017;27(6):437–443. doi:10.1111/ipd.12277.
31. Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videos shared on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(22):E1334–E1339. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002691.
32. Nason K, Donnelly A, Duncan HF. YouTube as a patient-information source for root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2016;49(12):1194–1200. doi:10.1111/iej.12575.
33. Özbay Y, Çırakoğlu NY. YouTube as an information source for instrument separation in root canal treatment. Restor Dent Endod. 2021;46(1):e8. doi:10.5395/rde.2021.46.e8.
34. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis–a wakeup call? J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):899–903. doi:10.3899/jrheum.111114.
35. Steinberg PL, Wason S, Stern JM, Deters L, Kowal B, Seigne J. YouTube as source of prostate cancer information. Urology. 2010;75(3):619–622. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.07.059.
36. Bavbek NC, Tuncer BB. Information on the Internet regarding orthognathic surgery in Turkey: Is it an adequate guide for potential patients? Turk J Orthod. 2017;30(3):78–83. doi:10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2017.17027.