Are YouTube™ Videos Useful for Patients? An Evaluation of YouTube™ Videos on Zygomatic Implants

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of information provided by YouTube™ videos on zygomatic implants. Material and Method: YouTube™ videos were searched using the keyword "Zygomatic implants". The first 200 videos were analyzed. After exclusion, the remaining 94 videos were independently analyzed by two investigators for demographic characteristics and content usefulness. All videos were rated as poor, fair, or excellent based on a usefulness score that assessed the quality and flow of the content. Overall video ratings included duration, views, likes, dislikes, and comments. Video content was analyzed using an 8-point scoring list. All videos were categorized according to their source. Categorical data were analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared test. For non-normally distributed data, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for between-group comparisons, and post-hoc Dunn's test was used for multiple comparisons. The significance level was set at p<0.050. Results: Analysis of the video upload locations showed that the highest rate was from the USA (51.1%), followed by India (21.3%) and Spain (5.3%). Regarding the source of the uploaded videos, 11.7% were educational videos produced by doctors, 54.2% were patient information videos, and 34% were promotional videos. There was a statistically significant difference in the median number of views, likes, and dislikes depending on the source of the video upload (p<0.001), but no statistically significant difference was found in other video parameters. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals should evaluate YouTube™ videos on zygomatic implants for clinical accuracy and content quality, and recommend videos to patients that meet professional standards and achieve the intended educational goals.

Keywords

• E-healthcare
• social media
• zygomatic implants

References

1. Becktor JP, Hallström H, Isaksson S, Sennerby L. The use of particulate bone grafts from the mandible for maxillary sinus floor augmentation before placement of surface-modified implants: results from bone grafting to delivery of the final fixed prosthesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66:780-6.
2. Collins TA, Brown GK, Johnson N, et al. Team management of atrophic edentulism with autogenous inlay, veneer, and split grafts and endosseous implants: case reports. Quintessence Int. 1995;26:79-93.
3. Hallman M, Hedin M, Sennerby L, Lundgren S. A prospective 1-year clinical and radiographic study of implants placed after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with bovine hydroxyapatite and autogenous bone. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60:277-86.
4. Aghaloo TL, Moy PK. Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement?. Erratum in: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22:49-70. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23:56.
5. Tong DC, Rioux K, Drangsholt M, Beirne OR. A review of survival rates for implants placed in grafted maxillary sinuses using meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13:175-82.
6. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Felice P, et al. The efficacy of horizontal and vertical bone augmentation procedures for dental implants - a Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009;2:167-84.
7. Fernández Valerón J, Fernández Velázquez J. Placement of screw-type implants in the pterygomaxillary-pyramidal region: surgical procedure and preliminary results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:814-9.
8. Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Hatano N. The use of zygomatic implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla. Periodontol 2000. 2008;47:162-71.

9. Brånemark P-I, Gröndahl K, Ohrnell L-O, et al. Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2004;38:70-85.
10. Higuchi KW. The zygomaticus fixture: an alternative approach for implant anchorage in the posterior maxilla. Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg. 2000;15:28-33.
11. Tonsaker T, Bartlett G, Trpkov C. Health information on the Internet: gold mine or minefield?. Can Fam Physician. 2014;60:407-8.
12. Hanna K, Brennan D, Sambrook P, Armfield J. Third molars on the internet: a guide for assessing information quality and readability. Interact J Med Res. 2015;4:e19.
13. Sturm S. Web 2.0 and the Health Care Market: Health Care in the Era of Social Media and the Modern Internet. Diplomica Verlag; 2010;1-56.
14. Exploding Topics. Top social media platforms. Exploding Topics. https://explodingtopics.com/blog/top-social-media-platforms access date 04.09.2024
15. Ulutaş ME, Balci E. Evaluation of Turkish videos about breast self-examination on YouTube. Eur Res J. 2024;1:1-8.
16. Nicholas D, Huntington P, Gunter B, et al. The British and their use of the web for health information and advice: a survey. Aslib Proc. 2003;55:261-76.
17. Briones R, Nan X, Madden K, Waks L. When vaccines go viral: an analysis of HPV vaccine coverage on YouTube. Health Commun. 2012;27:478-85.
18. Gaş S, Zincir ÖÖ, Bozkurt AP. Are YouTube videos useful for patients interested in botulinum toxin for bruxism?. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77:1776-83.
19. Doğan ME. Evaluating the reliability and accuracy of social media as a source of health information: a case study of hypertension related videos on Youtube. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2023;13:107-121.
20. Jayaratne YSN, Anderson NK, Zwahlen RA. Readability of websites containing information on dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:1319-24.
21. Aldairy T, Laverick S, McIntyre GT. Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid?. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:466-9.
22. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis--a wakeup call?. J Rheumatol. 2012;39:899-903.
23. Cassidy JT, Fitzgerald E, Cassidy ES, et al. YouTube provides poor information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26:840-5.
24. Pant S, Deshmukh A, Murugiah K, et al. Assessing the credibility of the “YouTube approach” to health information on acute myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol. 2012;35:281-5.
25. Wong K, Doong J, Trang T, et al. YouTube videos on botulinum toxin a for wrinkles: a useful resource for patient education. Dermatol Surg. 2017;43:1466-73.
26. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis. 2016;22:202-8.
27. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015;21:173-94.
28. Olsen BT, Sherwood CJ, Carrico CK, et al. Patient recall of information on a third molar informed consent video. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75:2507-11.