POST CORE RESTORASYONLARLA İLGİLİ YOUTUBE VİDEOLARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Abstract

ÖZ Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı YouTube’daki ‘Post Core’ restorasyonu ile alakalı video içeriklerini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: YouTube ‘da ‘post core’ yazılarak arama yapılmış ve ilk 50 video değerlendirilmiştir. Dili İngilizce veya Türkçe olmayan ve yetersiz videolar çalışmaya dahil edilmemiştir. Videoların içeriğini değerlendirirken post core’ un tanımı, endikasyonları, kontendikasyonları, işlem hakkında bilgi içermesi, maliyeti, yapılan restorasyonun uzmanlık gerektirmesi, post simantasyonu, kron preparasyonu, ölçü ve kullanılan aletleri anlatması gibi kriterler değerlendirilmiştir. Her bir kriter iki araştırmacı tarafından 0-3 arasında puanlandı. Bu puanlamaya göre videolar üç (düşük ,orta ,yüksek) gruba ayrıldı. Bulgular : Çalışma kapsamında taranan ilk 50 videonun 31 ‘i çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Videoların yükleyici gruplarına göre dağılımları değerlendirildiğinde en fazla sayıda videonun sağlık personeli tarafından yüklendiği görülmüştür.( n=15 ,%48.38) Videoların kalite gruplarına göre dağılımı %22,58’ i zayıf düzeyde,%74,19’ u orta düzeyde ve %3,22 ‘si yüksek düzeyde olacak şekildedir. Sonuç: Videoların çoğunun orta düzeyde yararlılık seviyesinde olduğu tespit edilmiştir.(%74,19) Kalite içeriklerine göre yapılan analizde videoların kron preparasyonu ve uluslararası kalite değerleri (GQS) kategorilerinde anlamlı bir farklılık olduğu tespit edildi.(p<0.05) Anahtar Kelimeler: internet; post core; sosyal medya;video.

Keywords

• internet
• sosyal medya
• video
• post core

Evaluation of YouTube videos about post core restorations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background : The aim of this study is to evaluate the ‘post core‘videos on YouTube. Materials and Methods : YouTube videos were searched with the world ‘post core ‘ and first 50 videos were examined. The language is not English and Turkish videos and insufficient videos were not included in the study. Criteria such as the definition of post core, indications, contraindications,information about the process, cost, expertise required, post cementation, crown preparation, measurement and describing the tools used were used when evaluating the content of the videos. Each criterion was scored between 0-3 by two researchers. According to this rating, the videos were separated into three different (low, medium, high) quality groups. Results: 31 of the first 50 scanned videos were included in the study. When the distributions were evaluated according to the video uploaders, it was seen that the most videos were uploaded by medical personnel.(n=15, 48.38%) The distribution of videos according to quality groups was found to be 22.58% at a poor level, 74.19% at a moderate level and 3.22% at a high level of quality. Conclusion : Most videos have been found to be moderately functional. Analysis according to the quality content, it was found that the significant difference in the crown preparation and GQS values of the videos.(p<0.05) Keywords:internet; post core; social media;video.

Keywords

• internet
• social media
• post core
• video

References

1. 1. Nobel Medical Bookstores, 2006:273-313.
2. 2. Robbins JW. Restoration of the endodontically treated tooth. Dent Clin North Am, 2002 Apr; 46 (2): 367-84. 3. Rosenstiel et al., 2006; Jacobi and Shillingburg, 1993; Cheung, 2005
3. 4. McGuire, L. C. Remembering what the doctor said: Organization and adults' memory for medical information. Experimental Aging Research, 1996,22(4), 403-428.
4. 5. Holmes EA, O'Connor RC, Perry VH, Tracey I, Wessely S, Arseneault L. et al. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun;7(6):547-560. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1. Epub 2020 Apr 15. PMID: 32304649; PMCID: PMC7159850.
5. 6. Bärtl, M. (2018). YouTube channels, uploads and views: A statistical analysis of the past 10 years. Convergence, 24(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517736979
6. 7. Vance, K., Howe, W., & Dellavalle, R. P. (2009). Social websites as a source of public health information. Dermatologic clinics, 27(2), 133–vi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.det.2008.11.010
7. 8. Boyers, L. N., Quest, T., Karimkhani, C., Connett, J., & Dellavalle, R. P. (2014). Dermatology on YouTube. Dermatology online journal, 20(6), 13030/qt5037g18h.
8. 9. Nason, G. J., Tareen, F., & Quinn, F. (2013). Hydrocele on the web: an evaluation of Internet-based information. Scandinavian journal of urology, 47(2), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365599.2012.719540

9. 10. Nagpal, S. J., Karimianpour, A., Mukhija, D., Mohan, D., & Brateanu, A. (2015). YouTube videos as a source of medical information during the Ebola hemorrhagic fever epidemic. SpringerPlus, 4, 457. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1251-9
10. 11. ElKarmi, R., Hassona, Y., Taimeh, D., & Scully, C. (2017). YouTube as a source for parents' education on early childhood careers. International journal of pediatric dentistry, 27(6), 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12277
11. 12. Yavuz, M. C., Buyuk, S. K., & Genc, E. (2020). Does YouTube™ offer high quality information? Evaluation of accelerated orthodontics videos. Irish journal of medical science, 189(2), 505–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-019-02119-z
12. 13. Gaş, S., Zincir, Ö. Ö., & Bozkurt, A. P. (2019). Are YouTube Videos Useful for Patients Interested in Botulinum Toxin for Bruxism?. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery: official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 77(9), 1776–1783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.04.004
13. 14. Hassona, Y., Taimeh, D., Marahleh, A., & Scully, C. (2016). YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral diseases, 22(3), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.12434
14. 15. Hegarty, E., Campbell, C., Grammatopoulos, E., DiBiase, A. T., Sherriff, M. et al. (2017). YouTube™ as an information resource for orthognathic surgery. Journal of orthodontics, 44(2), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14653125.2017.1319010
15. 16. Yilmaz, H., & Aydin, M. N. (2020). YouTube™ video content analysis on space maintainers. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, 38(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_215_19
16. 17. Menziletoglu, D., Guler, A. Y., & Isik, B. K. (2020). Are YouTube videos related to dental implant useful for patient education?. Journal of stomatology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, 121(6), 661–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2019.12.022
17. 18. Abukaraky, A., Hamdan, A. A., Ameera, M. N., Nasief, M., & Hassona, Y. (2018). Quality of YouTube TM videos on dental implants. Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 23(4), e463–e468. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.22447
18. 19. Pons-Fuster, E., Ruiz Roca, J., Tvarijonaviciute, A., & López-Jornet, P. (2020). YouTube information about diabetes and oral healthcare. Odontology, 108(1), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-019-00445-3
19. 20. Carneiro, B., & Dizon, D. S. (2019). Prostate Cancer Social Media: In YouTube We Trust?. European urology, 75(4), 568–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.004
20. 21. Leong, A. Y., Sanghera, R., Jhajj, J., Desai N., Jammu, B. S., & Makowsky, M. J. (2018). Is YouTube Useful as a Source of Health Information for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes? A South Asian Perspective. Canadian journal of diabetes, 42(4), 395–403.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2017.10.056
21. 22. Koller, U., Waldstein, W., Schatz, K. D., & Windhager, R. (2016). YouTube provides irrelevant information for the diagnosis and treatment of hip arthritis. International orthopaedics, 40(10), 1995–2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3174-7
22. 23. Kumar, N., Pandey, A., Venkatraman, A., & Garg, N. (2014). Are video sharing websites a useful source of information on hypertension?. Journal of the American Society of Hypertension: JASH, 8(7), 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jash.2014.05.001
23. 24. Ozdede, M., & Peker, I. (2020). Analysis of Dentistry YouTube Videos Related To COVID-19. Brazilian dental journal, 31(4), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202003767
24. 25. Desai, T., Shariff, A., Dhingra, V., Minhas, D., Eure, M., & Kats, M. (2013). Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public's response to medical videos on YouTube. PloS one, 8(12), e82469. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082469
25. 26. Wong NSM, Yeung AWK, McGrath CP, Leung YY. Qualitative Evaluation of YouTube Videos on Dental Fear, Anxiety and Phobia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Dec 31;20(1):750. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20010750. PMID: 36613071; PMCID: PMC9819845.
26. 28. DieltjensM,BraemMJ,VroegopAVMT,etal.Objectivelymeasured vs self-reported compliance during oral appliance therapy for sleep-disordered breathing. Chest. 2013;144(5):1495-1502.
27. 29. Hassona Y., Taimeh D., Marahleh A., Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis 2016;22:202-8.
28. 30. Morr S, Shanti N, Carrer A, Kubeck J, Gerling MC. Quality of information concerning cervical disc herniation on the Internet. Spine J 2010;10:350-4.
29. 31. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN. An instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. JECH 1999;53:105-11.