Youtube videos as a source of information on digital indirect bonding: a content analysis

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate YouTube videos as a source of information for digital indirect bonding techniques. Materials and Methods: The keyword “digital indirect bonding” was first searched on YouTube, resulting in 57 recorded videos. Descriptive parameters, including source, target audience, purpose, duration, upload date, number of likes, dislikes, views, and comments, were then evaluated. After this initial assessment, the interaction index and viewing rate were calculated. Video content quality was determined using a 5-point scale that categorized videos as having poor, moderate, or good content quality. This rating was based on the presence and discussion of various topics related to digital indirect bonding, including digital scan, digital bracket placement, transfer tray production from a 3D-printed model or direct production as a 3D-printed tray, clinical application, and advantages and/or disadvantages. The videos were assessed for quality using the global quality scale (GQS) and video information and quality index (VIQI). Statistical evaluation was conducted using Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square, and Pearson correlation analysis, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the rating reliability. Results: The majority of the videos were classified as having poor content quality (41.9%), followed by moderate (38.7%) and good (19.4%) content quality. No significant differences were found between the videos in terms of descriptive parameters. However, videos with good content quality had significantly higher GQS and VIQI scores than moderate and poor content videos. The total content showed significant correlations with GQS and VIQI (r=0.780 and r=0.446, respectively; p<0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion, while the majority of YouTube videos regarding digital indirect bonding were of poor content quality, those that were of good content quality could be considered a useful source of professional information.

Keywords

• Digital
• indirect bonding
• information
• video
• YouTube

References

1. Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: progress report. Am J Orthod 19”65; 51: 901-2. google scholar
2. Gange P. The evolution of bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 147(4 Suppl): 56-63. google scholar
3. Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly AA, Dietz VS. A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. Am J Orthod 1972; 62: 236-44. google scholar
4. Nawrocka A, Lukomska-Szymanska M. The indirect bonding technique in orthodontics-A narrative literature review. Materials (Basel) 2020; 13: 986. google scholar
5. Tarraf NE, Ali DM. Present and the future of digital orthodontics. Semin Orthod 2018; 24:376-85. google scholar
6. Dalbah L. Digital Orthodontics. In: Jain P, Gupta M. (eds) Digitization in Dentistry. Springer; 2021. p. 189-221. google scholar
7. Layman B. Digital bracket placement for indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod 2019; 53: 387-96. google scholar
8. Christensen LR, Cope JB. Digital technology for indirect bonding. Semin Orthod 2018; 24: 451-60. google scholar

9. Niu Y, Zeng Y, Zhang Z, Xu W, Xiao L. Comparison of the transfer accuracy of two digital indirect bonding trays for labial bracket bonding. Angle Orthod 2021; 91: 6773. google scholar
10. Jackers N, Maes N, Lambert F, Albert A, Charavet C. Standard vs computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing customized self-ligating systems using indirect bonding with both. Angle Orthod 2021; 91: 74-80. google scholar
11. Bakdach WMM, Hadad R. Linear and angular transfer accuracy of labial brackets using three dimensional-printed indirect bonding trays: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Int Orthod 2022; 20 :100612. google scholar
12. Czolgosz I, Cattaneo PM, Cornelis MA. Computer-aided indirect bonding versus traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets: bonding time, immediate bonding failures, and cost-minimization. A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2021; 43:144-51. google scholar
13. Bachour PC, Klabunde R, Grünheid T. Transfer accuracy of 3D-printed trays for indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2022; 92:372-9. google scholar
14. 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:e4. google scholar
15. 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: 231-7. google scholar
16. Knosel M, Jung K. Informational value and bias of videos related to orthodontics screened on a video-sharing Web site. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 532-9. google scholar
17. Kilinç DD, Sayar G. Assessment of reliability of YouTube videos on orthodontics. Turk J Orthod 2019; 32: 145-50. google scholar
18. Hegarty E, Campbell C, Grammatopoulos E, Dibiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. YouTube™ as an information resource for orthognathic surgery. J Orthod 2017; 44: 90-6. google scholar
19. Lena Y, Dindaroglu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: a YouTube video analysis. Angle Orthod 2018; 88: 208-14. google scholar
20. Grewal J, Marria G, Goel S. Information content of YouTube videos on orthognathic surgery - helpful? Indian J Dent Sci 2019; 11: 290-4. google scholar
21. Pasaoglu Bozkurt A, Ga§ S, Özdal Zincir Ö. YouTube video analysis as a source of information for patients on impacted canine. Int Orthod 2019; 17: 769-75. google scholar
22. tdal G, Guney AU. YouTube as a source of information about orthodontic clear aligners. Angle Orthod 2020; 90: 419-24. google scholar
23. Korkmaz YN, Buyuk SK. YouTube as a patient-information source for cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2020; 57: 327-32. google scholar
24. Yavuz MC, Buyuk SK, Genc E. Does YouTube™ offer high quality information? Evaluation of accelerated orthodontics videos. Ir J Med Sci 2020; 189: 505-9. google scholar
25. Hatipoğlu Ş, Gaş S. Is Information for surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion available on YouTube reliable? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020; 78: 1017.e1-10. google scholar
26. Meade MJ, Sooriakumaran P, Dreyer CW. Orthodontic retention and retainers: Quality of information provided by dental professionals on YouTube. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020; 158: 229-36. google scholar
27. Hatipoğlu S, Şenel FV. Does youtube™ offer reliable information about mini screws? >J Dent Res Rev 2021; 8: 90-6. google scholar
28. Coban G, Buyuk SK. YouTube as a source of information for craniofacial distraction osteogenesis. J Craniofac Surg 2021; 32: 2005-7. google scholar
29. Sezici YL, Gediz M, Dindaroğlu F. Is YouTube an adequate patient resource about orthodontic retention? A cross-sectional analysis of content and quality. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2022; 161: e72-9. google scholar
30. Yavan MA, Gökçe G. YouTube as a source of information on adult orthodontics: a video analysis study. J World Fed Orthod 2022; 11: 41-6. google scholar
31. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis 2016; 22: 202-8. google scholar