Dijital Diş Hekimliği Hakkında Bilgi Kaynağı Olarak Youtube™’un Değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı diş hekimliğinde dijitale doğru bir dönüşüm yaşanılan bu dönemde, dijital diş hekimliği hakkında YouTube™ videolarının içerik kalitesinin ve demografik özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Google Trends internet sitesinde dijital diş hekimliği hakkında en çok arama yapılan terimin ‘dijital diş’ olduğu belirlendi. Bu anahtar kelime kullanılarak YouTube™’da arama yapıldı ve en fazla görüntülenen 100 video içerisinden kriterleri karşılayan 54 video çalışmaya dahil edildi. Altı başlıktan oluşan bir içerik kalitesi puan sistemi kullanılarak videolar içerik yönünden zayıf, orta ve iyi olarak sınıflandırıldı. Ayrıca "global kalite skalası" na göre de videolar değerlendirildi. İstatistiksel değerlendirme için verilere Kruskal-Wallis testi ve ikili karşılaştırmalar için Mann- Whitney U testi uygulandı (p < 0.05). Bulgular: Videoların çoğunlukla (% 38.88) diş hekimleri tarafından yüklendiği, % 37.03’ünün dental şirketler tarafından yüklendiği ve bunu TV kanalları tarafından yüklenen videoların takip ettiği (% 24.07) görüldü. Diş hekimi kaynaklı videoların istatistiksel olarak anlamlı şekilde daha fazla görüntülenme (p = 0.036) ve beğenilme sayısına (p = 0.015) sahip olduğu görüldü. Kullanım kalitesi bakımından videoların % 18.51’i içerik olarak iyi, % 44.44’ü orta, % 37.03’ü ise zayıf bulundu. Sonuç: YouTube™ video platformunda dijital diş hekimliği hakkındaki bilgilerin sınırlı olduğu görüldü. Bu alanda uzman diş hekimlerinin ve akademisyenlerin doğru bilgilerin paylaşılmasında daha fazla rol almasının yararlı olacağı düşünülmekted

Evaluation of Youtube™ as A Source of Information About Digital Dentistry

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate videos related to digital dentistry on YouTube™ in terms of quality of content and demographic characteristics, in this period of digital transformation in dentistry. Methods: The most frequently used search term for digital dentistry on the Internet was found as ‘‘digital tooth’’ by Google Trends. Then a search was conducted on YouTube™ using that keyword. Within the first most screened 100 results, 54 videos that meeting criteria were included for analysis. Videos were classified according to the content as poor, moderate and good by using a six point quality of content score system, and also quality of the videos were examined by using global quality scale. The Kruskall-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U tests were applied to the data for statistical evaluation (p

PDF

___

1. MB Blatz, J Conejo. The current state of chairside digital dentistry and materials. Dent Clin N Am 2019;63:175-97.
2. T Weir. Clear aligners in orthodontic treatment. Aust Dent J 2017;62:58-62.
3. Almeida e Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, et al. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:515-23.
4. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-64.
5. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit ofcrowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:555-60.
6. Benic GI, Sailer I, Zeltner M, Gutermann JN, Ozcan M, Muhlemann S. Randomized controlled clinical trial ofdigital and conventional workflows for the fabrication ofzirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part III: marginaland internal fit. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:426-31.
7. Tsirogiannis P, Reissmann DR, Heydecke G. Evaluation ofthe marginal fit of single-unit, complete- coverage ceramicrestorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:328- 35.
8. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:10.
9. Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:761-3.
10.Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F. The Cerec system: computer-assisted preparation of direct ceramic inlays in 1 setting. Quintessenz 1987;38:457-70.
11.Abduo J, Lyons K, Bennamoun M. Trends in Computer-Aided Manufacturing in Prosthodontics: A Review of the Available Streams. Int J Dent 2014:783948.
12.Hesse BW, Moser RP, Rutten LJF, Kreps GL. The health information national trends survey: research from the baseline. J Health Commun 2006;11:vii-xvi.
13.Atkinson N, Saperstein S, Pleis J. Using the internet for health-related activities: findings from a national probability sample. J Med Internet Res 2009;11:e4.
14.Lena Y, Dindaroglu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: a YouTube video analysis. Angle Orthod 2017;88:208-14.
15.Vance K, Howe W, Dellavalle RP. Social internet sites as a source of public health information. Dermatol Clin 2009;27:133-6.
16.17.Baheti MJ, Toshniwal NG. Survey on oral hygiene protocols among orthodontic correction-seeking 16.Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on You-Tube: a systematic review. Health Inform J 2015; 21:173-94.
17.Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. You- Tube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis 2016;22:202-8. 18.Al-Silwadi FM, Gill DS, Petrie A, C unningham 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.
19.Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, et al. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2070-7.
20.Arklan Ü, Kartal NZ. Y kuşağının içerik tüketicisi olarak Youtube kullanımı: kullanım amaçları, kullanım düzeyleri ve takip edilen içerikler üzerine bir araştırma. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi 2018;6:929-64.
21.Abukaraky A, Hamdan AA, Ameera MN, Nasief M, Hassona Y. Quality of YouTube TM videos on dental implants. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2018;23:463–8.
22.22. Menziletoglu D, Guler AY, Isik BK. Are YouTube videos related to dental implant useful for patient education? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;8:S2468-7855(20)30034-3.
23.Ho A, McGrath C, Mattheos N. Social media patient testimonials in implant dentistry: information or misinformation? Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:791-800.
24.Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al. The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: national U.S. survey among 1.050 U.S. physicians. J Med Internet Res 2003;163:1727-34.
25.Coachman C, Calamita M. Digital smile design: a tool for treatment planning and communication in esthetic dentistry. Quintessence Dent. Technol. 2012;35:103-11.
26.Cai Z, Lian J, Shan X. Craniomaxillofacial surgery design. In:Rekow ED, editor. Digital dentistry: a comprehensive reference and preview of the future. Quintessence, United Kingdom, 2018, 165-83.
27.Kim RJ, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scannersfor complete-arch image acquisition: a qualitative andquantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:895-903.
28.Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:422-8
29.Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent 2015;18:101-29.
30.Al Hamad KQ. Learning curve of intraoral scanning by prosthodontic residents. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:277-83