• Users Online: 741
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 90-96

Does youtube™ offer reliable information about mini screws?


1 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Beykent, İstanbul, Turkey
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Beykent, İstanbul, Turkey

Date of Submission25-Nov-2020
Date of Acceptance18-Jan-2021
Date of Web Publication16-Jul-2021

Correspondence Address:
Sirin Hatipoglu
Beykent University, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Büyükçekmece Yerleskesi, Cumhuriyet mah. Safak sok. Avalon Binasi F Blok, k.4, 414, P.K. 34500, Büyükçekmece, Istanbul
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jdrr.jdrr_162_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Objective: The goal of the present study was to estimate the quality and accuracy of provided data of orthodontic mini-screws related YouTube™ videos. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional research, a systematic survey of YouTube™ videos about mini-screws was gathered by applying the term "mini screw." The first 200 videos were viewed and at the end, the study was based on 77 videos. Demographics of videos were recorded. The video content was scored using a 14-point score scale, which was used for the classification of low and high content video groups. The video information and quality index (VIQI) was used to evaluate the quality of videos. Descriptive statistic was used. Distribution of YouTube™ Video Demographics in Low and High content groups was done by using the Pearson Chi-squared test and Fisher exact test. The Mann–Whitney U-test was used to compare the quantitative data, which did not show normal distribution. Spearman's rho correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationships among the parameters. Significance was evaluated as P < 0.05. Results: We sorted 72 videos as low and 5 as high content. Healthcare providers uploaded most of the videos (58.4%). Educational videos were found to be the most (97.4%). Insertion of mini screw (65%), indication, and mechanics (45.5%) were the most; while, cost, oral hygiene (3.9%), and annoyance (5.2%) were the least mentioned topics. The mean "Duration of the videos" and "comments" in the high score group was statistically higher than the low content group. The VIQI Total Scores were found to be significantly higher in the high content group. Conclusion: Although a great variety of information, is available on YouTube™, content was found to be insufficient. Specialists must be aware that patients can use those videos as learning resources, and guide their patients to obtain correct/actual information.

Keywords: Internet, mini screw, patient information, social media, YouTube™


How to cite this article:
Hatipoglu S, Senel FV. Does youtube™ offer reliable information about mini screws?. J Dent Res Rev 2021;8:90-6

How to cite this URL:
Hatipoglu S, Senel FV. Does youtube™ offer reliable information about mini screws?. J Dent Res Rev [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Aug 1];8:90-6. Available from: https://www.jdrr.org/text.asp?2021/8/2/90/321534




  Introduction Top


In orthodontics, mini-screws are used as temporary anchorage devices, acting as a stable unit for the anchorage control. Anchorage is described as the resistance to undesired tooth movement and can be obtained from teeth, oral mucosa, extra-and intra-oral devices.[1] Mini screws are easily inserted in interdental areas, making it possible to create alternative and stationary anchorage sites for tooth movement. Mini screws has made complicated tooth movements basic and easier to achieve.[2],[3],[4] They also provide the benefits of simple placement/removal, immediate loading of orthodontic force, minimal expences, and good patient acceptance.[5],[6],[7] In the literature, there are many examples of clinical applications of mini-screws such as intrusion,[8] extrusion,[9] tooth sliding,[10] space closure,[11] and management of occlusal binding.[12] In recent years, because of the easier penetration and accessibility, Internet has become very popular to seek health-related information. Nowadays internet was searced by patients not only for answers for their medical questions but also for finding treatment options.[13] One of the favorite video streaming web sites is YouTube™. The efficacy and potential educational effect of YouTube™ videos on individuals have been studied in various health-related disciplines.[14],[15],[16]

Literature review yielded no definitive data about the quality of mini-screws related YouTube™ videos. The objective of the current research was to estimate the quality and accuracy of the contents of YouTube™ videos about mini-screws.


  Materials and Methods Top


Search strategy

First, to find out the most commonly used term, an online search tool (Google Trends) that allows the user to see how often particular terms have been questioned for a particular time, was used. "Temporary Anchorage Device," "mini screw" and "skeletal anchorage" terms were questioned with the "whole world" and "last 12 months" filters. It was determined that mini screw was the commonly used keyword. Then, an exploration on YouTube™ was made on October 15, 2019, by using the keyword "mini screw". As the default filter, we used "sort by relevance." A playlist of identified videos were created as descriptive characteristics may vary on different times.

The decision of the number of the videos that will included in the study was determined according to the previous related researches' contents, which revealed that the YouTube™ users are viewing mainly the initial 60 videos. As, most of the previous YouTube™ studies have used 60–200 videos,[17] we also decided to include the first 200 videos in our study.

Next, the first 200 ranked by relevance videos, were viewed. One hundred and twenty-three videos were excluded according to exclusion criteria, which were as follows: No audio, not in English videos, duplicate videos, videos that were not related to subject, multipart videos containing >3 parts, videos longer than 20 min and bilingual ones. Multipart videos, which contain three or less parts, were assessed separately. Finally, 77 videos were included.

Data collection and video classification

Two reviewers independently(Ş.H and F.V.Ş) viewed all videos in 1 week and interobserver disagreements were resolved until a consensus was reached. Resaerchers were blinded to each other's answers at first. However, reviewers did not see the number of likes/dislikes/comments before finishing their own analysis for unbiased evaluation.

Video characteristics (the number of views, duration, video's date of upload, number of likes/dislikes/comments), total content score, total video information and quality index (VIQI), source of upload, and country origin, video type were registered for each video. Viewers' interactions were calculated based on the Interaction index (number of likes – number of dislikes/total number of views × 100%) and viewing rate (number of views/number of days since upload × 100%) formulas.

Content of the evaluated videos were as follows: (1) definition, (2) indication, (3) mechanics/biomechanics, (4) initial fear and anxiety, (5) insertion, (6) treatment duration, (7) taking, (8) advantages, (9) complications, (10) cost, (11) medications/anesthesia given before/after insertion, (12) quality of life: (a) pain/hurt, (b) annoyance, (c) oral hygiene/brushing [Table 1]. According to the total content score, videos were divided into low (0–7) and high (8–14) content videos.

The total quality of the video was determined by applying "The video information and quality index." The VIQI scale uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (poor quality) to 5 (high quality) to assess the following video features: Flow of information, Information accuracy, Quality (one point each for use of still images, animation, interview with individuals in the community, video captions, and a report summary), and Precision (level of coherence between video title and content).
Table 1: Items used in scoring content

Click here to view


Videos were classified by the source of upload into five groups: Healthcare professionals, hospital/university, commercial, individual user and others; according to the type: Educational and testimonial.

Because the study contained only public data, it was exempted by the faculty of dentistry Research and Ethics Committee.

Statistical analysis

When evaluating the findings obtained in this study, IBM SPSS (Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0, Armonk, NY, USA, IBM Corp) package program was used. Descriptive statistic is given in [Table 2]. Distribution of YouTube™ Video demographics in low and high content groups was done by using the Pearson Chi-squared test and Fisher exact test [Table 3]. The Mann–Whitney U-test was used to compare the quantitative data, which did not show normal distribution, [Table 4]. Spearman's rho correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationships among the parameters, [Table 5]. The results of multiple regression analyses were stated in [Table 6]. Twenty randomly selected videos were analyzed in the same way, by the two examiners, 20 days later. Intrarater and interrater reliability was determined by using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Significance was evaluated as P < 0.05.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of the youtube™ videos including video characteristics, total content, total video information and quality index, source of upload and video type

Click here to view
Table 3: Demographic analysis of content, source of upload and video types

Click here to view
Table 4: Demographic analysis of video characteristics and total video information and quality index score

Click here to view
Table 5: Correlation matrix of video characteristics, total content score and total video information and quality index score

Click here to view



  Results Top


After viewing of the first 200 YouTube™ videos, 123 videos were excluded. All ratings were based on 77 videos. Seventy-two videos were classified (93.5%) as having low and 5 (6.5%) as having high content [Table 3].

Looking at the country origin, most of the videos (24.7%, n = 19) were uploaded by the USA. Most of the remaining videos (16.9%, n = 13) were uploaded by Taiwan and India followed them as the third country (10.4%, n = 8).

The descriptive characteristics of video statistics and the descriptive statistics according to the video content are shown in [Table 2]. Videos were mainly uploaded by healthcare professionals (58.4%, n = 45), commercial companies (23.4%, n = 18), and others (15.6%, n = 12), whereas only two videos (2.6%) were uploaded by the individual users. The majority of analyzed video type was educational (97.4%, n = 75) and the remaining two videos (2.6%) were found to be patient experience type. The duration of YouTube™ videos was found to be 3:48. The mean number of views was found to be 44348.71. The overall mean number of likes was 138.21, while the mean number of dislikes was 23.04. The mean total content score was 3.16 and the mean VIQI Total score was 13.36 [Table 2]. The mean viewing rate was 0.21; the mean number of days since upload was 1720.9 and the number of comments was found to be 34.5, respectively [Table 2].

We found that, insertion (65%, n = 50), indication (45.5%, n = 35) and mechanics (45.5%, n = 35) were the most mentioned; while, cost (3.9%, n = 3), oral hygiene (3.9%, n = 3) and annoyance (5.2%, n = 4) were the least mentioned topics [Table 3]. The content scores of definition, indication, mechanics, initial fear, insertion, treatment duration, taking off, advantages, and medications were found to be statistically higher in the low content group. Cost, annoyance, and oral hygiene scores were found to be higher in the high content group. The content scores of pain were statistically same for the both groups. Seventy-two (93.5%) and five (6.5%) videos were included in the low and high content groups, respectively. There were statistically significant differences between the low and high content score groups in terms of the sources of upload. Forty-three videos (60.0%), uploaded by the healthcare professionals contained low content and two videos (40.0%) uploaded by individual users contained high content [Table 3].

The mean "Length of the videos" in the high content group was statistically longer than the low content group and also "Comments" score in the high content group was significantly higher than the low content group [P < 0.05, [Table 4]]. Although, dislikes were much more in number in low content group and likes were much more in number in the high group, because of standard deviation those changes were not found to be statistically significant. There were no statistically significant differences between low and high content groups in terms of the other video characteristics. The VIQI Total Scores containing the flow, accuracy, and quality of information, except precision were found to be significantly higher in the high content group, than the low content group [P < 0.05, [Table 4]].

The correlation among Total-Content Score, VIQI, and YouTube™ demographics are stated in [Table 5]. There was a positive and statistically significant correlation between VIQI Total and total content score (0.65**), number of likes (0.36**), video duration in minutes (0.56**), interaction index (0.43**) and viewing rate (0.25*) (**P < 0.05, *P < 0.01). The total content score was also positively correlated with the number of views (0.33**). There was no statistically significant relationship among VIQI Total and other demographic characteristics (P > 0.05). Correlation of total content score with VIQI, number of views, duration in minutes, likes, and viewing rate was performed by multiple regression analysis. The results were stated in [Table 6]. It was found that the effect of VIQI on Total-Content Score was positive and statistically significant (*P < 0.01), creating the 80.8% of the alteration in the Total Content Score.
Table 6: Multiple regression analysis of total content score and related variables

Click here to view


ICCs values ranged between 0.921 and 0.980 for intrarater reliability and from 0.922 to 0.936 for interrater reliability.


  Discussion Top


Nowadays, patients are seeking for information about the procedures, which are going to be used as a part of their orthodontic treatment. Even though, the other social media tools are also used; YouTube™, is one of the popular mediums in recent years.[18],[19] Although it is used commonly for listening to music and entertainment, it create an outline for learning in a new digital era. However, easy video sharing and lack of standardization for video uploading are the main disadvantages that affects the validity and reliability of the available information on YouTube™.[20] Thus, with this research, our goal was to estimate the content accuracy and quality of mini-screws related videos on YouTube™. The relationships among video characteristics, source of upload, country origin, and video types were also evaluated.

Bilingual videos were excluded because of their increased duration time. On all bilingual videos, firstly, the speaker was talking in and then a translator was translating. This was creating long videos and disturbance of attention of the viewers.

Items used in the scoring content list were all based and designed according to the concerns of health providers and patients' interests.

The USA, Taiwan, and India were found to be the highest video uploading countries. This may be due to their high population or common use of mini screws as a treatment modality.

When the source of uploads was evaluated, we saw that not only healthcare professionals but also commercial companies and individual users were uploading videos on YouTube™.

When we compare the content of videos as low and high, the number of videos with low content was higher than high content. There are no established standards, for the video upload on YouTube™. That is an explanation of why we found a small number of high content videos.[21] However, the VIQI assessment showed that the quality of videos was moderate to high. Users keeping up with the technology could be the reason of these opponent findings. These findings are similar to the findings of Hatipoğlu and Gaş[22] and in the contrary with the results reported by Lena and Dindaroğlu.[18]

There are many studies analyzing the information on web of different health-related topics.[14],[23],[24] There are also, studies assessing the content of videos related to Orthodontics on YouTube™ and other social media platforms.[18],[25],[26],[27],[28] Al-Silwadi et al., found that social media tools are increasing the information level of orthodontic patients.[19] Henzell et al., reported that orthodontic patients are using social media sites (Twitter for example) to express their feelings about braces.[27] Noll et al. reported that positive tweeds were more than negative ones, with no significant difference between braces and Invisalign tweets.[25] Knösel and Jung concluded that orthodontists should notice the significance of social media in the adolescents' opinion-forming process.[26]

According to our study's correlation matrix among scores for Total-Content Score, VIQI and video characteristics, a positive and statistically significant correlation was detected among Total-Content Score and VIQI Total, number of views, video duration in minutes, number of likes, and viewing rate. Those findings were similar to the findings of Hatipoğlu and Gaş.[22] There was also a positive relationship among VIQI Total, video duration in minutes, number of likes, viewing rate, and interaction index. On the other hand, when we compare the variations among high and low content groups, we found that only duration in minutes and number of comments were higher in the high content group. YouTube™ users view the contentful, qualified videos and react to them as increase in their likes and viewing rates. Lena and Dindaroğlu,[18] besides those parameters, found positive correlation between Total-Content Score and dislike. The significant difference between video durations is showing that the increased video duration means also increased Total-Content Score. Our findings are in agreement with the findings of Lena and Dindaroğlu, Hatipoğlu and Gaş.[18],[22],[29]

Testimonial videos are mostly containing and sharing personal experiences. On the contrary, videos uploaded by the healthcare institutions/professionals are having educational content and were found to be more[30] similar to the results of our study. Among evaluated videos, there were no videos including all the content items. When the video content was analyzed, it was seen that the most mentioned topics in video contents were related to the insertion procedure of mini-screws. The majority of the healthcare professionals' uploads can explain this. Because laypeople are mostly sharing their experiences, oral hygiene, annoyance, and cost were mostly mentioned in the individual users' uploads. Generally, cost and oral hygiene were the least mentioned subjects.

The present study has some limitations. For example, participants are self-selected and do not illustrate an extensive and disseminated population. In addition, restricted data collection tools have been utilized, whereas the use of ethnographic approaches and quantitative methods may have expand and add horizon to the research.

We must kept in mind that, YouTube™ content is active and search results are incessantly changing, and also that some variables such as viewing rate, likes, dislakes and comments could be controlled and operated. The scoring system, which we used in this study is simple, easy to apply, and with small modifications, could be used by other reviewers on similar subjects. The authors encourage other researchers to contribute to the evaluation and development of the tool.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Roberts-Harry D, Sandy J. Orthodontics. Part 9: Anchorage control and distal movement. Br Dent J 2004;196:255-63.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Kokich VG. Managing complex orthodontic problems: The use of implants for anchorage. Semin Orthod 1996;2:153-60.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Mazzocchi AR, Bernini S. Osseointegrated implants for maximum orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:412-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Favero L, Brollo P, Bressan E. Orthodontic anchorage with specific fixtures: Related study analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:84-94.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Carrillo R, Buschang PH, Opperman LA, Franco PF, Rossouw PE. Segmental intrusion with mini-screw implant anchorage: A radiographic evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:576.e1-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Patil P, Kharbanda OP, Duggal R, Das TK, Kalyanasundaram D. Surface deterioration and elemental composition of retrieved orthodontic miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2015;147 4 Suppl: S88-100.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Zawawi KH. Acceptance of orthodontic miniscrews as temporary anchorage devices. Patient Prefer Adherence 2014;8:933-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Cao Y, Liu C, Wang C, Yang X, Duan P, Xu C. A simple way to intrude overerupted upper second molars with miniscrews. J Prosthodont 2013;22:597-602.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Baena RY, Lupi MS, Ceriana G, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A. Extrusion of severely impacted mandibular first molar using partial orthodontics and temporary anchorage miniscrews. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2016;17:310-4.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Yamada K, Kuroda S, Deguchi T, Takano-Yamamoto T, Yamashiro T. Distal movement of maxillary molars using miniscrew anchorage in the buccal interradicular region. Angle Orthod 2009;79:78-84.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Mesko ME, Skupien JA, Valentini F, Pereira-Cenci T. Can we close large prosthetic space with orthodontics? Int J Orthod Milwaukee 2013;24:41-4.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Cantarella D, Lombardo L, Siciliani G. The dynforce archwire. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2013;4:204-11.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Ni Riordain R, Hodgson T. Content and quality of website information on the treatment of oral ulcers. Br Dent J 2014;217:E15.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Ho A, McGrath C, Mattheos N. Social media patient testimonials in implant dentistry: Information or misinformation? Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:791-800.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
ElKarmi R, Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Scully C. YouTube™ as a source for parents' education on early childhood caries. Int J Paediatr Dent 2017;27:437-43.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Wong K, Doong J, Trang T, Joo S, Chien AL. YouTube™ videos on botulinum toxin A for wrinkles: A useful resource for patient education. Dermatol Surg 2017;43:1466-73.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
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:e82469.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Lena Y, Dindaroğlu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: A YouTube™ video analysis. Angle Orthod 2018;88:208-14.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Al-Silwadi FM, Gill DS, Petrie A, Cunningham SJ. Effect of social media in improving knowledge among patients having fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: A single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148:231-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Nason GJ, Kelly P, Kelly ME, Burke MJ, Aslam A, Giri SK, et al., YouTube as an educational tool regarding male urethral catheterization. Scand J Urol 2015;49:189-92.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Ajumobi AB, Malakouti M, Bullen A, Ahaneku H, Lunsford TN. YouTube™ as a source of instructional videos on bowel preparation: A content analysis. J Canser Educ 2016;31:755-9.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Hatipoğlu Ş, Gaş S. Is information for Surgically Assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion (SARPE) available on YouTube™ reliable? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;78:1017.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Pandey A, Patni N, Singh M, Sood A, Singh G. YouTube as a source of information on the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Am J Prev Med 2010;38:e1-3.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Gao X, Hamzah SH, Yiu CK, McGrath C, King NM. Dental fear and anxiety in children and adolescents: Qualitative study using YouTube. J Med Internet Res 2013;15:e29.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Noll D, Mahon B, Shroff B, Carrico C, Lindauer SJ. Twitter analysis of the orthodontic patient experience with braces vs Invisalign. Angle Orthod 2017;87:377-83.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Knösel M, Jung K. Informational value and bias of videos related to orthodontics screened on a video-sharing Web site. Angle Orthod 2011;81:532-9.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Rachel Henzell M, Margaret Knight A, Morgaine KC, Antoun JS, Farella M. A qualitative analysis of orthodontic-related posts on Twitter. Angle Orthod 2014;84:203-7.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Livas C, Delli K, Ren Y. Quality evaluation of the available Internet information regarding pain during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2013;83:500-6.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Gaş S, Zincir íí, Bozkurt AP. Are youtube videos useful for patients interested in botulinum toxin for bruxism? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;77:1776-83.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Bezner SK, Hodgman EI, Diesen DL, Clayton JT, Minkes RK, Langer JC, et al. Pediatric surgery on YouTube™: Is the truth out there? J Pediatr Surg 2014;49:586-9.  Back to cited text no. 30
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed168    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded31    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]