Evaluation of YouTubeTM as an Information Source for Indirect Restorations: Cross-Sectional Evaluation
Purpose: To evaluate the usefulness and quality of popular videos about indirect restorations shared by different uploaders onYouTube and to evaluate the demographic characteristics of the videos.Materials and Methods: The most commonly used terms related directly to indirec...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Ankara University
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | European Annals of Dental Sciences |
| Online Access: | https://dergipark.org.tr/en/doi/10.52037/eads.2024.0017 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841525452109250560 |
|---|---|
| author | Işıl Doğruer Merve Kütük Ömeroğlu |
| author_facet | Işıl Doğruer Merve Kütük Ömeroğlu |
| author_sort | Işıl Doğruer |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Purpose: To evaluate the usefulness and quality of popular videos about indirect restorations shared by different uploaders onYouTube and to evaluate the demographic characteristics of the videos.Materials and Methods: The most commonly used terms related directly to indirect posterior restorations were determined as"inlay" and "onlay" in this topic. Of the 400 videos (200 for each topic), 40 videos were selected for analysis. Evaluations weremade for each video in terms of the following: (1) number of views, (2) number of comments, (3) days since up-load, (4) numberof ’likes’, (5) Viewing rate; [(number of views/number of days since upload) * 100%], (6) Viewer interaction, (7) Usefulness Indexscore, (8) 5-point global quality scale (GQS) criteria.Results: No statistically significant difference was found among usefulness scores and video sources. (p=0.754). Based on theusefulness score, 20% were classified as good, 40% as poor, and 40% as moderate. No statistically significant difference was foundamong primary purpose of videos and video sources. (p=0.754). The greatest number of videos (42.5%) was uploaded by dentists(n=17). When the primary purpose is evaluated for the videos uploaded by dentists, the highest numerical value was determined aseducation for health professionals (52.9%) (n=9).Conclusions: The contents of YouTube videos regarding the indications and production stages of inlay and onlay restorations needto be revised according to our evaluation criteria. The number of educational videos providing detailed content and information topatients should be increased.Keywords: Indirect restoration, Inlay, Onlay, Video analysis, YouTube |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-570d002160e749d6abada802fb2275a1 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2757-6744 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Ankara University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | European Annals of Dental Sciences |
| spelling | doaj-art-570d002160e749d6abada802fb2275a12025-01-17T11:30:51ZengAnkara UniversityEuropean Annals of Dental Sciences2757-67442024-12-0151310210610.52037/eads.2024.0017 Evaluation of YouTubeTM as an Information Source for Indirect Restorations: Cross-Sectional Evaluation Işıl Doğruer0https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4162-1404Merve Kütük Ömeroğlu1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0253-4212İstanbul Okan Üniversitesiİstanbul Okan Üniversitesi Purpose: To evaluate the usefulness and quality of popular videos about indirect restorations shared by different uploaders onYouTube and to evaluate the demographic characteristics of the videos.Materials and Methods: The most commonly used terms related directly to indirect posterior restorations were determined as"inlay" and "onlay" in this topic. Of the 400 videos (200 for each topic), 40 videos were selected for analysis. Evaluations weremade for each video in terms of the following: (1) number of views, (2) number of comments, (3) days since up-load, (4) numberof ’likes’, (5) Viewing rate; [(number of views/number of days since upload) * 100%], (6) Viewer interaction, (7) Usefulness Indexscore, (8) 5-point global quality scale (GQS) criteria.Results: No statistically significant difference was found among usefulness scores and video sources. (p=0.754). Based on theusefulness score, 20% were classified as good, 40% as poor, and 40% as moderate. No statistically significant difference was foundamong primary purpose of videos and video sources. (p=0.754). The greatest number of videos (42.5%) was uploaded by dentists(n=17). When the primary purpose is evaluated for the videos uploaded by dentists, the highest numerical value was determined aseducation for health professionals (52.9%) (n=9).Conclusions: The contents of YouTube videos regarding the indications and production stages of inlay and onlay restorations needto be revised according to our evaluation criteria. The number of educational videos providing detailed content and information topatients should be increased.Keywords: Indirect restoration, Inlay, Onlay, Video analysis, YouTubehttps://dergipark.org.tr/en/doi/10.52037/eads.2024.0017 |
| spellingShingle | Işıl Doğruer Merve Kütük Ömeroğlu Evaluation of YouTubeTM as an Information Source for Indirect Restorations: Cross-Sectional Evaluation European Annals of Dental Sciences |
| title |
Evaluation of YouTubeTM as an Information Source for Indirect Restorations: Cross-Sectional Evaluation
|
| title_full |
Evaluation of YouTubeTM as an Information Source for Indirect Restorations: Cross-Sectional Evaluation
|
| title_fullStr |
Evaluation of YouTubeTM as an Information Source for Indirect Restorations: Cross-Sectional Evaluation
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
Evaluation of YouTubeTM as an Information Source for Indirect Restorations: Cross-Sectional Evaluation
|
| title_short |
Evaluation of YouTubeTM as an Information Source for Indirect Restorations: Cross-Sectional Evaluation
|
| title_sort | evaluation of youtubetm as an information source for indirect restorations cross sectional evaluation |
| url | https://dergipark.org.tr/en/doi/10.52037/eads.2024.0017 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT isıldogruer evaluationofyoutubetmasaninformationsourceforindirectrestorationscrosssectionalevaluation AT mervekutukomeroglu evaluationofyoutubetmasaninformationsourceforindirectrestorationscrosssectionalevaluation |