The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of the reliability and information quality of YouTube videos on implant overdenture

임플란트 피개의치에 관한 유튜브 영상의 신뢰도 및 질적 평가

  • Sun-Woo Park (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Seon-Ki Lee (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Jin-Han Lee (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Jae-In Lee (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University)
  • 박선우 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이선기 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이진한 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이재인 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2024.01.16
  • Accepted : 2024.03.22
  • Published : 2024.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and information quality of YouTube videos on implant overdenture searched in two languages (Korean and English). Materials and methods. Youtube, an online video sharing platform was searched using search terms in two different languages related to implant overdenture. A total of 120 videos were selected (60 videos for each search term), then the reliability and information quality of the videos were evaluated. Topic domain, DISCERN instrument, and JAMA benchmark were used to evaluate the reliability and information quality of the videos. Statistical analyses were performed by using the Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test. Results. Out of a total of 120 videos, the topic domain scores of 78 (65.0%) videos were evaluated as 'poor', and the DISCERN scores of 104.5 (87.1%) videos were evaluated as 'very poor' and 'poor'. The Korean videos had significantly higher topic domain scores and DISCERN scores than the English videos (P < .05). 3.5 Korean videos and 4 English videos met the criteria for attribution of JAMA benchmark. Conclusion. The reliability and information quality of YouTube videos on implant overdenture were low.

목적: 본 연구는 두 가지 언어(한국어, 영어)로 검색한 임플란트 피개의치에 관한 유튜브 영상의 신뢰도와 정보의 질을 평가하고자 하였다. 재료 및 방법: 온라인 영상 공유 플랫폼인 유튜브(YouTube)에서 두 가지 검색어(임플란트 틀니, implant overdenture)로 임플란트 피개의치와 관련된 영상을 검색하였고, 검색어 당 60개씩 총 120개 영상을 선정하였다. 주제 영역, DISCERN 도구, JAMA 척도를 이용하여 선정된 영상의 신뢰도와 정보의 질을 평가하였다. 통계 분석을 위해 Mann-Whitney U test와 Kruskal-Wallis test를 실시하였다. 결과: 총 120개 영상 중 78개(65.0%) 영상의 주제 영역 점수가 '나쁨'에 해당하였으며, 104.5개(87.1%) 영상의 DISCERN 점수가 '매우 나쁨'과 '나쁨'에 해당하였다. 한국어 영상의 주제 영역 점수, DISCERN 점수가 영어 영상보다 유의하게 높았다 (P < .05). JAMA 척도의 권한 항목에 충족하는 한국어 영상은 3.5개, 영어 영상은 4개였다. 결론: 임플란트 피개의치에 관한 유튜브 영상의 신뢰도와 정보의 질은 낮았다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

2023학년도 원광대학교 교내 연구비 지원을 받았음.

References

  1. Lee DJ, Saponaro PC. Management of edentulous patients. Dent Clin North Am 2019;63:249-61.
  2. Gupta A, Felton DA, Jemt T, Koka S. Rehabilitation of edentulism and mortality: a systematic review. J Prosthodont 2019;28:526-35.
  3. Mishra SK, Chowdhary R. Patient's oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction with implant supported overdentures -a systematic review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2019;9:340-6.
  4. Limpuangthip N, Somkotra T, Arksornnukit M. Impacts of denture retention and stability on oral health-related quality of life, general health, and happiness in elderly thais. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res 2019;2019:3830267.
  5. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Heydecke G, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais JA, Naert I, Payne AG, Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology 2002;19:3-4.
  6. Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Muller F, Naert I, Ellis JS, Barclay C, Butterworth C, Scott B, Lynch C, Stewardson D, Smith P, Welfare R, Hyde P, McAndrew R, Fenlon M, Barclay S, Barker D. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients-the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J 2009;207:185-6.
  7. Kutkut A, Bertoli E, Frazer R, Pinto-Sinai G, Fuentealba Hidalgo R, Studts J. A systematic review of studies comparing conventional complete denture and implant retained overdenture. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:1-9.
  8. Bajunaid SO, Alshahrani AS, Aldosari AA, Almojel AN, Alanazi RS, Alsulaim TM, Habib SR. Patients' satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life of edentulous patients using conventional complete dentures and implant-retained overdentures in Saudi Arabia. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19: 557.
  9. Sadowsky SJ, Zitzmann NU. Protocols for the maxillary implant overdenture: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:s182-91.
  10. Hatakeyama W, Takafuji K, Kihara H, Sugawara S, Fukazawa S, Nojiri T, Oyamada Y, Tanabe N, Kondo H. A review of the recent literature on maxillary overdenture with dental implants. J Oral Sci 2021;63:301-5.
  11. Yagci F. Evaluation of YouTube as an information source for denture care. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129:623-9.
  12. Bezner SK, Hodgman EI, Diesen DL, Clayton JT, Minkes RK, Langer JC, Chen LE. Pediatric surgery on YouTubeTM: is the truth out there? J Pediatr Surg 2014;49:586-9.
  13. Gas S, Zincir OO, Bozkurt AP. Are YouTube videos useful for patients interested in botulinum toxin for bruxism? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;77:1776-83.
  14. Abukaraky A, Hamdan AA, Ameera MN, Nasief M, Hassona Y. Quality of YouTubeTM videos on dental implants. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2018;23:e463-8.
  15. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:105-11.
  16. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor-Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997;277:1244-5.
  17. Jia X, Pang Y, Liu LS. Online health information seeking behavior: a systematic review. Healthcare (Basel) 2021;9:1740.
  18. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J 2015;21:173-94.
  19. Benigeri M, Pluye P. Shortcomings of health information on the internet. Health Promot Int 2003;18:381-6.
  20. Eksi Ozsoy H. Evaluation of YouTube videos about smile design using the DISCERN tool and Journal of the American Medical Association benchmarks. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:151-4.
  21. Menziletoglu D, Guler AY, Isik BK. Are YouTube videos related to dental implant useful for patient education? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;121:661-4.
  22. Kong HJ. The quality and reliability of YouTube videos on All-on-four concept. J Korean Dent Assoc 2022;60:616-24.
  23. Keelan J, Pavri-Garcia V, Tomlinson G, Wilson K. YouTube as a source of information on immunization: a content analysis. JAMA 2007;298:2482-4.
  24. Che X, Barry IP, Lin L. A survey of current YouTube video characteristics. IEEE Multimedia 2015;22:55-63.
  25. Ng CH, Lim GRS, Fong W. Quality of English-language videos on YouTube as a source of information on systemic lupus erythematosus. Int J Rheum Dis 2020;23:1636-44.
  26. Enver N, Doruk C, Kara H, Gurol E, Incaz S, Mamadova U. YouTubeTM as an information source for larynx cancer: a systematic review of video content. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020;277:2061-9.