Assessment of the Content and Quality of Youtube Videos Related Subperiosteal Implants: A Cross-Sectional Study

Ilgın Arı; Arzum Yılmaz; Somayah Hürmüzlü; Erçin Samunahmetoğlu

Assessment of the Content and Quality of Youtube Videos Related Subperiosteal Implants: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the content and quality of YouTube videos related to subperiosteal implants, focusing on their educational value and reliability for both patients and healthcare professionals. Materials and Methods: A total of 150 YouTube videos were identified using the keyword "subperiosteal implant" and filtered by English language. The videos have no audio; non-English language; off-topic content; duration exceeding 30 minutes; YouTube. The demographic data of videos as source of upload, comments, likes, interaction index, viewing and duration were recorded, and the videos were divided into low (LCG) and moderate-high content (MHG) groups according to their contents. The videos content quality was assessed using the DISCERN tool and Global Quality (GQ) scale. Results: In this study, 69 YouTube videos on subperiosteal implants were analyzed, with 72.5% uploaded by commercial organizations and only one video by a university. The primary target audience of the analyzed YouTube videos predominantly comprised healthcare professionals. The moderate-high content group (MHG) had mean DISCERN and GQ scores of 42.89 and 2.97, respectively, compared to 31.4 and 1.82 in the low-content group (LCG) (p=0.001). The most frequently discussed topics included implant definitions and procedural steps, while postoperative care, complications, and contraindications were underrepresented. Statistical differences were observed in video length (p=0.021), but no significant differences were found for other demographic data. Conclusions: YouTube videos related to subperiosteal implants are generally inadequate for educational purposes, especially for patients. To improve content quality, healthcare professionals and academic institutions should actively contribute accurate, evidence-based videos. Enhanced video resources could better serve as reliable educational tools in clinical dentistry.

Keywords

References

1. Sabri H, Barootchi S, Heck T, Wang HL. Single‐rooted extraction socket classification: A systematic review and proposal of a new classification system based on morphologic and patient‐related factors. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35:168-182.
2. Smeets R, Matthies L, Windisch P, Gosau M, Jung R, Brodala N, Stefanini M, Kleinheinz J, Payer M, Henningsen A, Al-Nawas B, Knipfer C. Horizontal augmentation techniques in the mandible: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2022;8:23.
3. Artzi Z. Lateral augmentation of the jaw by the split expansion ridge technique. A critical review. Periodontol 2000. 2023;93:205-220.
4. Nunes M, de Araújo Nobre M, Camargo V. All-on-4 Hybrid with Extra-Long Transnasal Implants: Descriptions of the Technique and Short-Term Outcomes in Three Cases. J Clin Med. 2024;13:3348.
5. Yu Z, Guo H, Han W, Jiang X, Lin Y. Peri‐zygomatic complications on zygomatic implants with or without penetrating the external surface of zygoma: A 2‐year retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2024;26:197-205.
6. Young L Jr, Michel JD, Moore DJ. A twenty-year evaluation of subperiosteal implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49(5):690-694.
7. Flynn HE, Natiella JR, Meenaghan MA, Carter JM. The unilateral subperiosteal implant: a clinical technique evolving from experimental studies. J Prosthet Dent. 1982;48:82-85.
8. Mommaerts MY. Evolutionary steps in the design and biofunctionalization of the additively manufactured sub-periosteal jaw implant 'AMSJI' for the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48:108-114.

9. Anitua E, Eguia A, Staudigl C, Alkhraisat MH. Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2024;10:4.
10. Vaira LA, Biglio A, Roy M, Salzano G, Troise S, Abbate V, Mayo-Yanez M, Lechien JR, Piombino P, De Riu G. Full-arch rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxilla with additively manufactured custom-made subperiosteal implants: A multicenter retrospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2024;52:991-998.
11. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis. 2016;22:202-208.
12. Şan H. Youtube videos for the most commonly applied radionuclide treatments: sufficient for patients as an information source? Nucl Med Commun. 2022;43:656-662.
13. Yildirim G, Kocaelli HA. Assessment of the content and quality of YouTube videos related zygomatic implants: A content–quality analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25:605-612.
14. Gaikwad A, Rachh P, Raut K. Critical evaluation of YouTube videos regarding the all-on-4 dental implant treatment concept: A content-quality analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;11:S0022-3913(23)00821-1.
15. Paksoy T, Gaş S. Quality and content of YouTubeTM videos related to sinus lift surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol. 2021;33:48-52.
16. Sezici YL, Gediz M, Dindaroğlu F. Is YouTube an adequate patient resource about orthodontic retention? A cross-sectional analysis of content and quality. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022;161:e72-e79.
17. Şallı GA, Egil E. Are YouTube videos useful as a source of information for oral care of leukemia patients. Quintessence Int. 2020;51:78-85.
18. Buyukozturk S. Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık. 2007.
19. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics. vol 6. pearson Boston, MA; 2013.
20. Onică N, Budală DG, Baciu ER, Onică CA, Gelețu GL, Murariu A, Balan M, Pertea M, Stelea C. Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of 3D-Printed Subperiosteal Titanium Implants: A 6-Year Follow-Up. J Pers Med. 2024;14:541.
21. Menziletoglu D, Guler AY, Isik BK. Are YouTube videos related to dental implant useful for patient education? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;121:661-664.
22. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, Donelan K, Catania J, Lee K, Zapert K, Turner R. 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;5:e17.
23. Lena Y, Dindaroğlu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: a YouTube™ video analysis. The Angle Orthodontist. 2018;88:208-214.
24. Asif M, Kazi S. Examining the Influence of Short Videos on Attention Span and its Relationship with Academic Performance. Int J Sports Med. 2024;13:8.
25. Sui W, Sui A, Rhodes RE. What to watch: Practical considerations and strategies for using YouTube for research. Digit Health. 2022;8:20552076221123707.
26. Ma S, Bai C, Chen C, Bai J, Yu M, Zhou Y. Public sense of dental implants on social media: A cross-sectional study based on text analysis of comments. J Dent. 2023;137:104671.
27. Kurian N, Varghese KG, Daniel S, Varghese VS, Kaur T, Verma R. Are YouTube videos on complete arch fixed implant-supported prostheses useful for patient education? J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131:684-688.
28. Ozdede M, Peker I. Analysis of dentistry YouTube videos related to COVID-19. Braz Dent J. 2020;31:392-398.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Dental Public Health

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ilgın Arı ^*
0009-0009-4506-9996
Türkiye

Arzum Yılmaz
0000-0002-5850-1591
Türkiye

Somayah Hürmüzlü
0000-0001-8756-2134
Türkiye

Erçin Samunahmetoğlu
0000-0002-5727-6310
Türkiye

Publication Date

June 30, 2025

Submission Date

January 4, 2025

Acceptance Date

January 13, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 28 Number: 2

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA44AG96KJ

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Arı I, Yılmaz A, Hürmüzlü S, Samunahmetoğlu E (June 1, 2025) Assessment of the Content and Quality of Youtube Videos Related Subperiosteal Implants: A Cross-Sectional Study. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 28 2 167–173.