Is Youtube™ A Reliable Source on Invisalign First® in Mixed Dentition?

Year 2025, Volume: 15 Issue: 3, 495 - 503, 30.09.2025

Elif Ece Kalaoğlu , Gülay Dumanli Gök

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1487709

Abstract

Objective:Clear aligner systems, particularly Invisalign First®, have become an increasingly popular treatment option for children during the mixed dentition stage. With the growing reliance of patients and caregivers on digital platforms such as YouTube™ for health-related information, concerns about the accuracy and educational value of this content are becoming increasingly significant. This study aimed to evaluate the quality, usefulness, and reliability of YouTube™ videos discussing Invisalign First® for children.
Methods:A systematic search was conducted on YouTube™ using the keywords “invisalign first” and “clear aligners and mixed dentition”. For each term, the first 185 English-language videos were collected, generating a total of 370 videos. Videos were included if they were uploaded between 22 May 2018 and 23 September 2023, in English, and provided information relevant to clear aligner use in children with mixed dentition. After applying exclusion criteria, 74 videos were selected for final evaluation. Each video was assessed independently by two experienced clinicians—a pediatric dentist and an orthodontist, each with 13 years of professional experience in orthodontic care for children in the mixed dentition. Videos were evaluated using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and a 12-item usefulness score designed to measure the comprehensiveness and relevance of the educational content. Data collected from each video included length (in minutes), number of views, likes, dislikes, and days since upload. From these variables,
the interaction index and viewing rate were calculated. The videos were categorized into four source groups:(1) Dental companies/clinics (2) Dentists/Orthodontists, (3) Laypersons, (4) Others. The intended target audience was classified as: (1) professional, (2) layperson, or (3) both. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to test the normality of numerical data. Non-normally distributed variables were analyzed using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Group comparisons were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Pearson correlation coefficient. A p-value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results:Of the 74 videos analyzed, 35.1% were uploaded by dental clinics, 31.1% by dentists/orthodontists, 21.6% by laypersons, and the remainder by others. The majority of videos (62%) targeted laypersons, while 24% targeted both professionals and lay audiences.The average video length was 4.2 minutes (SD = 1.6). The average number of views per video was 12340, ranging from 580 to 156000 views. The mean interaction index was 1.8, and the viewing rate was 2.3. 44% of videos were classified as poor quality based on GQS. 30% were considered generally poor quality. Only a small fraction (14%) were rated as good or excellent. Based on the usefulness score, most videos were rated as slightly useful or moderately useful. Videos rarely included balanced discussions of risks, limitations, or alternative treatments. A strong positive correlation was observed between usefulness and GQS (r = 0.817, p = 0.000), suggesting that higher-quality videos also tended to offer more useful educational content. The inter – and intra-examiner reliability of scoring was high, demonstrating excellent agreement between the evaluators. This indicates that the evaluation criteria were applied consistently and that the scoring method was robust. There are several limitations to this study. First, there is currently no standardized, validated tool for objectively assessing video-based educational content, making the evaluation process inherently subjective despite the use of structured scoring systems. Second, video selection was based on YouTube’s™ default relevance ranking, which may be influenced by algorithms, advertisements, or user personalization settings. Lastly, YouTube™ content is dynamic, and video availability or ranking may change over time, potentially affecting reproducibility.
Conclusion:YouTube™ videos discussing Invisalign® First for children in the mixed dentition stage are generally of low quality and limited usefulness. Although many videos mention the benefits of clear aligner treatment, few provide comprehensive, balanced, or professionally verified information. Given the increasing reliance on social media platforms for healthcare information, it is crucial to develop strategies for guiding the public toward reliable, evidence-based content. Furthermore, establishing validated, quantitative tools for evaluating video content would greatly improve future research in this area.

Keywords

Orthodontic appliances (removable) , Invisalign First , pediatric dentistry , orthodontics , social media , consumer health information

Ethical Statement

Not applicable.

References

• Grippaudo C, Paolantonio EG, Luzzi V, Manai A, La Torre G, Polimeni A. Orthodontic screening and treatment timing in preschoolers. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2019;5(1):59-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/CRE2.161
• Kalaoglu EE, Dumanli Gok G. Comparison of acceptability of orthodontic appliances in children in mixed dentition treated with removable acrylic appliances and Invisalign first: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Heal 2024;24(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05059-y
• Kluemper GT, Beeman CS, Hicks EP. Early orthodontic treatment: what are the imperatives? J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131(5):613–620. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0235
• Bishara SE, Justus R, Graber TM. Proceedings of the workshop discussions on early treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998;113:5–6. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0235
• Tausche E, Luck O, Harzer W. Prevalence of malocclusions in the early mixed dentition and orthodontic treatment need. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26(3):237-244. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/26.3.237
• Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(5):881–889. https://doi.org/10.2319/061614-436.1
• Nguyen QV, Bezemer PD, Habets L, Prahl-Andersen B. A systematic review of the relationship between overjet size and traumatic dental injuries. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21(5):503–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/EJO/21.5.503
• Meade MJ, Weir T. Clinical efficacy of the Invisalign mandibular advancement appliance: A retrospective investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2024;165(5):503–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2023.11.008
• Levrini L, Carganico A, Abbate L. Maxillary expansion with clear aligners in the mixed dentition: A preliminary study with Invisalign ® First system. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2021;22(2):125-128. https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2021.22.02.7
• Jaber ST, Hajeer MY, Burhan AS, Latifeh Y. The effect of treatment with clear aligners versus fixed appliances on oral health-related quality of life in patients with severe crowding: a one-year follow-up randomized controlled clinical trial. Cureus. 2022;14(5):e25472. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.25472
• Pinho T, Rocha D, Ribeiro S, Monteiro F, Pascoal S, Azevedo R. Interceptive Treatment with Invisalign® First in Moderate and Severe Cases: A Case Series. Children. 2022;9(8):1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/CHILDREN9081176/S1
• Brezniak N, Wasserstein A, Protter N. Clear aligner biomechanical limitations: anchorage and couple (torque) development. Angle Orthod. 2023;93(5):615-616. https://doi.org/10.2319/1945-7103-93.5.615
• Naseri N, Baherimoghadam T, Bassagh N, Hamedani S, Bassagh E, Hashemi Z. The impact of general self-efficacy and the severity of malocclusion on acceptance of removable orthodontic appliances in 10- to 12-year-old patients. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01293-2
• Gonçalves A, Ayache S, Monteiro F, Silva FS, Pinho T. Efficiency of Invisalign First® to promote expansion movement in mixed dentition: a retrospective study and systematic review. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2023;24(2):112–123. https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2023.1754
• Walton DK, Fields HW, Johnston WM, Rosenstiel SF, Firestone AR, Christensen JC. Orthodontic appliance preferences of children and adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;138(6):698.e1-698.e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJODO.2010.06.012
• Shi C, Feng Y, Hsiao YC, Smith J, Jin C, Farella M, Mei L. Clear aligners brands and marketing claims: An overview of available information on the web. Australas Orthod J. 2022;38(2):252–262. https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2022-0025
• 17. Ahmad T, Sattar K, Akram A. Medical professionalism videos on YouTube: Content exploration and appraisal of user engagement. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2020;27(9):2287-2292. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SJBS.2020.06.007
• Incerti Parenti S, Gamberini S, Fiordelli A, Bortolotti F, Laffranchi L, Alessandri-Bonetti G. Online information on mandibular advancement device for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: A content, quality and readability analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2023;50(3):210–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13400
• Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015;21(3):173–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213512220
• Duman C. YouTubeTM quality as a source for parent education about the oral hygiene of children. Int J Dent Hyg. 2020;18(3):261–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/IDH.12445
• Ustdal G, Guney AU. YouTube as a source of information about orthodontic clear aligners. Angle Orthod. 2020;90(3):419–424. https://doi.org/10.2319/072419-491.1
• Collins M, Luc D, Karadeniz E, Petocz P, Flores-Mir C, Karadeniz C. The appeal of “Do It Yourself” orthodontic aligners: A YouTube analysis. Australas Orthod J. 2021;37(2):321–32. https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2021.036
• Sadry S, Buyukbasaran E, Sadry S, Buyukbasaran E. Content analysis and reliability of YouTubeTM videos on clear aligner. APOS Trends Orthod. 2021;11(3):209–217. https://doi.org/10.25259/APOS_46_2021
• Cesur E, Tuncer K, Sevgi D, Balaban BC, Arslan C. Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of YouTubeTM Videos Created by Orthodontists as an Information Source for Clear Aligners. Turkish J Orthod. 2024;37(1):44. https://doi.org/10.4274/TURKJORTHOD.2023.2022.127
• Capan BS. YouTube as a source of information on space maintainers for parents and patients. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0246431. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0246431
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/IPD.12277
• Yagci F. Evaluation of YouTube as an information source for denture care. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129(4):623–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2021.06.045
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/ODI.12434
• Tamošiūnaitė I, Vasiliauskas A, Dindaroğlu F. Does YouTube provide adequate information about orthodontic pain? Angle Orthod. 2023;93(4):403–408. https://doi.org/ 10.2319/072822-527.1
• Knösel M, Jung K. Informational value and bias of videos related to orthodontics screened on a video-sharing Web site. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(3):532–539. https://doi.org/10.2319/091710-541.1
• Lena Y, Dindaroglu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: A YouTubeTM video analysis. Angle Orthod. 2017;88(2):208-214. https://doi.org/10.2319/090717-602.1
• 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(1):382. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03446-z
• Mukhamediyarov M, Nurmashev B, Bekaryssova D. Analysis of the quality and credibility of health-related content on YouTube: cross-sectional study. Cent Asian J Med Hypotheses Ethics. 2024;5(4):269–78. https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2024.5.4.03
• Marañón-Vásquez GA, Barreto LS da C, Pithon MM, Nojima LI, Nojima M da CG, Araújo MT de S, et al. Reasons influencing the preferences of prospective patients and orthodontists for different orthodontic appliances. Korean J Orthod. 2021;51(2):115. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.115
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0082469