Scholarlink

Background <p>Ceramic implants are increasingly used as metal-free alternatives to titanium implants because of their favorable esthetic properties and biocompatibility. As patients frequently seek dental information online, YouTube has become an important source of patient-oriented health information. This study aimed to evaluate the educational quality and ceramic implant-specific content coverage of YouTube videos on ceramic implants and to examine whether viewer engagement metrics were associated with video quality scores.</p> Methods <p>A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 63 English-language YouTube videos identified through six predefined keyword searches. Videos were screened independently by two calibrated evaluators according to predefined eligibility criteria. During scoring, evaluators were blinded to viewer engagement metrics. Video quality was assessed using the Video Information and Quality Index, Global Quality Score, and an exploratory, non-validated dentistry-specific Specific Content Checklist developed to evaluate ceramic implant-specific content coverage. Viewer engagement metrics, including views, likes, comments, and subscriber counts, were recorded. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients, and relationships between variables were analyzed using Pearson correlation tests.</p> Results <p>The mean Video Information and Quality Index, Global Quality Score, and Specific Content Checklist scores were 3.27 ± 0.56, 3.34 ± 0.57, and 3.29 ± 1.68, respectively. Inter-rater reliability showed good agreement between evaluators, with average-measure intraclass correlation coefficients (two-way mixed-effects, consistency) ranging from 0.779 to 0.870. No statistically significant correlations were found between video quality scores and viewer engagement metrics; exact p values for these correlations ranged from .129 to .921. The wider dispersion of Specific Content Checklist scores indicated variability in ceramic implant-specific content coverage across videos.</p> Conclusions <p>Viewer engagement metrics should not be interpreted as reliable indicators of educational quality or ceramic implant-specific content coverage in YouTube videos on ceramic implants. Because the Specific Content Checklist was exploratory and non-validated, findings should be interpreted as indicators of content coverage rather than definitive measures of factual accuracy or clinical adequacy. Clinician-guided digital health literacy remains essential for helping patients interpret online ceramic implant information.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Educational quality and viewer engagement of Youtube videos on ceramic implants: a cross-sectional study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月9日

查看全文
  • Mehmet Zahit Baş,
  • Halil İbrahim Durmuş,
  • Tevfik Kızılseki,
  • Nuran Dağ

摘要

Background

Ceramic implants are increasingly used as metal-free alternatives to titanium implants because of their favorable esthetic properties and biocompatibility. As patients frequently seek dental information online, YouTube has become an important source of patient-oriented health information. This study aimed to evaluate the educational quality and ceramic implant-specific content coverage of YouTube videos on ceramic implants and to examine whether viewer engagement metrics were associated with video quality scores.

Methods

A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 63 English-language YouTube videos identified through six predefined keyword searches. Videos were screened independently by two calibrated evaluators according to predefined eligibility criteria. During scoring, evaluators were blinded to viewer engagement metrics. Video quality was assessed using the Video Information and Quality Index, Global Quality Score, and an exploratory, non-validated dentistry-specific Specific Content Checklist developed to evaluate ceramic implant-specific content coverage. Viewer engagement metrics, including views, likes, comments, and subscriber counts, were recorded. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients, and relationships between variables were analyzed using Pearson correlation tests.

Results

The mean Video Information and Quality Index, Global Quality Score, and Specific Content Checklist scores were 3.27 ± 0.56, 3.34 ± 0.57, and 3.29 ± 1.68, respectively. Inter-rater reliability showed good agreement between evaluators, with average-measure intraclass correlation coefficients (two-way mixed-effects, consistency) ranging from 0.779 to 0.870. No statistically significant correlations were found between video quality scores and viewer engagement metrics; exact p values for these correlations ranged from .129 to .921. The wider dispersion of Specific Content Checklist scores indicated variability in ceramic implant-specific content coverage across videos.

Conclusions

Viewer engagement metrics should not be interpreted as reliable indicators of educational quality or ceramic implant-specific content coverage in YouTube videos on ceramic implants. Because the Specific Content Checklist was exploratory and non-validated, findings should be interpreted as indicators of content coverage rather than definitive measures of factual accuracy or clinical adequacy. Clinician-guided digital health literacy remains essential for helping patients interpret online ceramic implant information.