Abstract
-
Objectives
This study aimed to evaluate the content, quality and demographics of YouTube videos about rubber dam as an information source for clinicians and dental students.
-
Materials and Methods
“Rubber dam,” “rubber dam application,” “dental isolation,” “rubber dam isolation,” and “dental dam” were determined as keywords for the detection of YouTube videos related to rubber dam. Seventy 3 videos were evaluated and a total of 34 videos met the inclusion criteria. All selected videos were evaluated according to 8 parameters. The videos were scored 1 if the videos contained information about the selected parameter, but if the videos did not contain enough information, they were scored 0. The data were statistically analyzed with the analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05).
-
Results
We found that 41% of the videos have poor, 47% have moderate, and 12% have good information. There is a statistically significant difference in time between poor and good information content (p < 0.05). There is a statistically significant difference between the poor and good information in the video information and quality index 1.
-
Conclusions
Rubber dam-related videos available on YouTube are generally moderately informed and insufficient. YouTube is currently not sufficient as a source of information for patients and clinicians at the moment. The YouTube platform should be developed and enriched with quality information on current and dental issues.
-
Keywords: Dental isolation; Education; Rubber dam; YouTube
INTRODUCTION
The significance of oral microorganisms in the pathogenesis of endodontic diseases is well known [
1,
2]. The success of a root canal treatment depends on conducting powerful infection control to eliminate the present infection and prevent the root canal system from reinfection. To preserve the operating field from contamination, using a rubber dam is ideal [
3].
Rubber dam, invented 150 years ago, remains ideal for tooth isolation during dental treatments [
4]. In particular, during root canal treatment, the rubber dam offers several benefits for both patients and dentists [
5]: It protects patients’ airways, reduces aerosol contamination, offers an aseptic working area, and improves workflow [
6]. Using rubber dams has thus become a standard of care and is mandatory during root canal treatments [
7].
Despite the many benefits of rubber dam, it is not commonly used in general dental practice [
8]. However, rubber dam application is taught in every dental school as well as in many courses and online platforms [
9]. One of these platforms is YouTube, an important dental education source, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Established in 2005, YouTube is one of the biggest video-sharing websites, with more than 65,000 videos uploaded every day [
10,
11]. It is commonly visited by dental students and dentists as well as patients. YouTube videos are free, searchable, accessible, and have users’ comments under them. Moreover, these videos benefit the educational process, as visualizing information is useful while learning. However, these videos are not peer-reviewed, and there are concerns about the scientific validity, reliability, and accuracy of their content, which may offer inaccurate and potentially misleading information [
12]. In light of this, many studies have analyzed the accuracy and quality of the information contained in these videos [
10,
13].
There are videos on several dentistry topics available, such as regenerative endodontic treatment, access cavity preparation, root canal treatment, and artificial intelligence in dental radiology [
10,
13,
14,
15,
16]. Although there are many videos on rubber dams and their application, to our knowledge, no studies have evaluated their content, accuracy, and quality. We thus aimed to fill this research gap and evaluate the suitability of these videos to be a reliable information source for clinicians and dental students.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Video selection
Since the data used in this study was obtained from a public platform, approval from the ethics committee was not required. The search terms used were selected from the terms used by dental students and clinicians on social media.
We created a YouTube account to store the videos included in the study. On October 4, 2022, we searched YouTube for videos related to rubber dam applications. We used the following terms to search the videos: “rubber dam,” “rubber dam application,” “dental isolation,” “rubber dam isolation,” and “dental dam.”
Since most users watch the first 30 videos on a page, these were recorded to evaluate each term [
14]. After removing the duplicates, we evaluated 73 videos and excluded those videos that met any of these criteria: 1) non-English, 2) advertisements, 3) containing only images or audio, 4) unrelated to the search terms, 5) longer than 20 minutes, and 6) about rubber dam applications in the primary teeth. We sorted the related videos using the “sort by relevance” option; no additional filters were used.
A total of 34 videos met the inclusion criteria. They were analyzed, and the following parameters were recorded for each one: 1) duration (minutes); 2) number of likes; 3) number of views; 4) ownership; and 5) target audience.
We then evaluated the content of the videos according to the 8 parameters determined by Patel and Hamer [
6]: 1) usage purposes; 2) presentation of rubber dam kit; 3) 1-step technique; 4) 2-step technique; 5) problems encountered during the application and their solutions; 6) multiple tooth isolation; 7) split-dam technique; and 8) rubber dam removal. If a video had information about the selected parameter, it was scored 1; if not, it was scored 0. Two endodontists independently evaluated the videos, and if they could not reach a consensus, they consulted a third endodontist. Inter-researcher reliability analysis was performed using the Kappa statistic to determine the variability between the researchers.
Videos with a score between 0 and 2 points have poor information; those with a score between 3 and 4 have moderate information (they have some information which, though useful, is insufficient); those with a score between 5 and 6 have good information (they offer significant information and discuss some parameters well); and those with a score between 7 and 8 points offer excellent information (in addition to offering significant information, they discuss all the parameters).
We assessed the quality of the videos using the 4 evaluation criteria of the video information and quality index (VIQI): information flow (the fluency of the information given on the subject) (VIQI 1), information accuracy (VIQI 2), quality (videos including 1 point for each image, animation, interview, video captions, and summary) (VIQI 3), and precision (the level of coherence between the video’s title and its content) (VIQI 4). To evaluate each criterion, we used a 5-point Likert scale.
Statistical analysis
To conduct statistical analysis, we used IBM SPSS Statistics (v21; IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). To compare data and video scores according to groups, we used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. For the pairwise comparison of significant data, we used the post hoc Tukey test. For all the tests, we set the statistical significance at p < 0.05.
RESULTS
From the 73 selected videos, we excluded 39 because of the exclusion criteria. Then, to evaluate the information from the videos, we used 8 evaluation criteria. The inter-researcher reliability for usefulness scoring was significantly high (Kappa value = 0.887). This showed that the inter-observers were in close agreement.
We found that 41% of the videos have poor information, 47% have moderate information, and 12% have good information. No video has an excellent knowledge score.
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistical data of the videos. The videos received a mean of 56,429.50 ± 104,674.77 views and a mean of 741.94 ± 1,723.56 likes. The mean duration of the videos was 6.06 ± 4.40 minutes. In addition, the mean of the total VIQI score was 12.52 ± 4.25.
Table 1 The descriptive statistics of the YouTube videos on rubber dams
|
Variables |
No. |
Mean ± SD |
Min–Max |
|
Time (in minute) |
34 |
6.06 ± 4.40 |
0.27–18.06 |
|
Number of likes |
34 |
741.94 ± 1,723.56 |
0–10,000 |
|
Number of views |
34 |
56,429.50 ± 104,674.77 |
792–553,000 |
|
VIQI 1 (information flow) |
34 |
3.02 ± 1.46 |
1–5 |
|
VIQI 2 (information accuracy) |
34 |
3.47 ± 1.26 |
1–5 |
|
VIQI 3 (quality) |
34 |
2.5 ± 1.48 |
1–5 |
|
VIQI 4 (precision) |
34 |
3.52 ± 1.35 |
1–5 |
|
Total VIQI score |
34 |
12.52 ± 4.25 |
4–20 |
The information that was most frequently mentioned in the videos was about the “presentation of rubber dam kit” (61.7%), followed by “1-step technique” (50.0%) and “multiple tooth isolation” (50.0%), and “usage purposes” (44.1%). The topics that were least frequently mentioned were “rubber dam removal,” “2-step technique” (32.0%), “split-dam technique” (8.8%), and “problems encountered during the application and their solutions” (5.8%) (
Table 2).
Table 2 A usefulness scoring system and observation rate for videos about “rubber dam”
|
Scoring element |
Score |
Observation rate |
|
Usage purposes |
1 |
44.1% |
|
Presentation of rubber dam kit |
1 |
61.7% |
|
1-step technique |
1 |
50.0% |
|
2-step technique |
1 |
32.0% |
|
Problems encountered during the application and their solutions |
1 |
5.8% |
|
Multiple tooth isolation |
1 |
50.0% |
|
Split-dam technique |
1 |
8.8% |
|
Rubber dam removal |
1 |
35.2% |
|
Total |
8 |
- |
There is a statistically significant difference in duration between videos with poor information content and good information content (
p < 0.05). The information content score was found to increase with videos with longer durations. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the information content score and the number of likes and views. Moreover, although insignificant, videos with good information content were found to have the highest number of likes and views. When we evaluated the VIQI, a statistically significant difference was found between poor and good information in the VIQI 1 (information flow). The information flow was found to increase with more information content. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the information content score and the other VIQI (
Table 3).
Table 3 The evaluation of the relationship between duration, the number of likes, the number of views, the video information and quality index (VIQI), and the information content
|
Variables |
Poor |
Moderate |
Good |
p value |
|
Mean ± SD |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean ± SD |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean ± SD |
Minimum |
Maximum |
|
Time |
3.83 ± 3.31 |
0.27 |
10.49 |
6.98 ± 3.59 |
2.30 |
15.54 |
10.18 ± 7.10 |
3.16 |
18.06 |
0.015*
|
|
Number of likes |
449.78 ± 561.09 |
5 |
1,900 |
519.25 ± 596.98 |
0 |
2,000 |
2,665.25 ± 4,897.68 |
59 |
10,000 |
0.056 |
|
Number of views |
48,114.5 ± 77,520.47 |
2,278 |
287,000 |
39,835.75 ± 41,809.02 |
792 |
157,000 |
151,907.00 ± 267,952.02 |
2,402 |
553,000 |
0.149 |
|
VIQI 1 (Information flow) |
2.35 ± 1.49 |
1 |
5 |
3.31 ± 1.3 |
1 |
5 |
4.25 ± 0.95 |
3 |
5 |
0.037*
|
|
VIQI 2 (Information accuracy) |
2.92 ± 1.38 |
1 |
5 |
3.81 ± 0.98 |
1 |
5 |
4.00 ± 1.41 |
2 |
5 |
0.105 |
|
VIQI 3 (Quality) |
2.21 ± 1.67 |
1 |
5 |
2.56 ± 1.31 |
1 |
5 |
3.25 ± 1.50 |
2 |
5 |
0.469 |
|
VIQI 4 (Precision) |
3.00 ± 1.51 |
1 |
5 |
4.00 ± 1.21 |
1 |
5 |
3.50 ± 0.57 |
3 |
5 |
0.130 |
DISCUSSION
This study highlights the volume of information about rubber dam available on YouTube. During dental and endodontic treatments, the patients’ cooperation and knowledge of treatment are crucial. YouTube videos play an especially significant role in improving patients’ and clinicians’ information about endodontic treatments [
15,
17,
18,
19].
YouTube is one of the largest and most visited video-sharing platforms; it is free, easily accessible, and has lots of educational videos. However, since the platform has no control mechanism, there is a high probability that its videos will contain inaccurate and incomplete information [
20]. Using YouTube videos for the education of patients and clinicians has been explored in many different medical and dental studies. There are several YouTube videos on oral health issues, such as oral cancers, Sjögren’s syndrome, dental implants, early childhood caries, root canal treatment, digital dentistry, root resorption, traumatic dental injuries, regenerative endodontic treatment, and endodontic access cavity preparation [
10,
12,
14,
15,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26].
A comprehensive search for YouTube videos on rubber dam applications was conducted on October 4, 2022. Following duplicate removal, 73 videos were identified and subsequently assessed against predefined inclusion criteria. This process yielded a final sample of 34 videos deemed suitable for analysis. The relatively modest sample size reflects the inherent limitations of YouTube as a data source for this specific topic. This is consistent with previous studies utilizing YouTube as a data source. For instance, Jamleh
et al. [
14,
27] evaluated 41 videos on access cavity preparation, while their investigation of periradicular surgery included 42 videos. The relative scarcity of relevant videos may be attributed to the limited target audience of rubber dam applications. Additionally, awareness and use of the rubber dam among clinicians was low prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, further contributing to the limited number of educational videos available. Given the limitations of the platform and topic, our sample size of 34 videos is consistent with similar studies in the literature, and provides valuable insight into the content of rubber dam videos on YouTube. However, new videos about rubber dam should be uploaded to YouTube. It may be useful to re-evaluate the contents of these videos with a larger sample size in the future.
Several studies have focused on the effectiveness and perception of videos as a learning tool in medical and dental education [
28,
29,
30,
31]. When first-year dental students were asked to compare video-based learning with textbook-based learning, the former was reported to be much more effective [
30]. In a study conducted on 479 dental students, which investigated the effectiveness of YouTube in learning clinical procedures, 95% found videos helpful. However, 36% reported being unsure of the videos’ information content [
31].
The benefits of video-based lectures reported by medical and dental students include ease of access, the ability to view content according to one’s pace, the flexibility to download material at any time, and the ability to revisit previous material [
28,
32,
33]. Video-based courses on online platforms can be used by educational institutions for distance learning and to deal with problems concerning the lack of faculty members and financial deficiencies [
34].
Rubber dam has positive benefits: it reduces microbial contamination, the potential for patients to swallow or inhale irrigation solutions, files, and infected tooth debris, and enhances the field of view of clinicians and patients [
35]. Evidently, rubber dam is considered the gold standard in endodontic treatments [
36]. However, as studies have revealed, rubber dam is not quite frequently used in endodontic treatments, which is probably because of clinicians’ lack of knowledge about how to use them [
37]. Especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians and dentistry students started using YouTube for educational purposes, with videos on rubber dam applications being the most in-demand, as it has been reported that rubber dams can significantly decrease airborne particles in up to 3-foot diameter of the operational field by 70% [
38]. According to past research, YouTube viewers go through the first 3 pages of search results, and the majority of the videos are in English [
39]. In light of this, and since the language of the literature is English, we evaluated only the English videos on the first 3 pages. Moreover, since YouTube decided in 2021 to hide the number of dislikes received by a video, we did not take the same into account.
Regarding study limitations, only English videos were evaluated, and this can be considered a geographical limitation. Moreover, YouTube is a dynamic platform, with new videos constantly uploaded, but only the videos uploaded close to the date of the study were evaluated.
Creating informational content headings to analyze the videos and evaluate their quality has been reported to directly influence the study data [
40,
41]. In this study, after conducting the literature review, 8 information content headings were decided in line with the suggestions of Patel and Hamel [
6].
The “presentation of rubber dam kit” was the most mentioned content (61.7%), as most of the videos started by introducing rubber dam pieces. There is thus fruitful information on this subject in the videos. Moreover, we think that physicians’ confusion regarding the wide variety of clamps can be alleviated by the videos, as we found that this information content has been frequently mentioned. Moreover, the videos can help patients recognize the material applied to their teeth and mouths.
Video duration is an important standard for providing detailed information to the audience. However, sometimes, when the duration increases, viewers find it difficult to focus on the subject [
22,
42]. In the present study, a positive correlation between duration and information content was found. This finding similar to that of previous studies is probably because there are more opportunities to discuss related content in a longer video [
10,
22,
43].
Moreover, although insignificant, videos with good information content were found to have the highest number of likes and views. As the information content of the videos increased, patients’ and clinicians’ interest in them increased, and these videos were clicked on more and attracted more attention. Similar to Demirci and Dindaroğlu [
26] we found that information flow (VIQI 1) increases with an increase in information content. This can be associated with a more fluent progression of videos with good information content.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that the existing YouTube videos on rubber dams are generally moderately informed and insufficient. They are insufficient as sources of information for patients and clinicians; however, can be considered supplements. More YouTube videos with quality information on dental and current issues should be produced in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was presented as an oral presentation at the Turkish Dentists Association 27th International Congress of Turkish Dentistry on October 26–29, 2023 in Ankara, Turkey.
-
Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
-
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization: Kiraz G, Mumcu AK.
Data curation: Kiraz G, Mumcu AK, Kurnaz S.
Formal analysis: Kiraz G, Mumcu AK, Kurnaz S.
Investigation: Kiraz G, Mumcu AK.
Methodology: Kiraz G, Mumcu AK.
Project administration: Kiraz G, Mumcu AK.
Resources: Kiraz G, Mumcu AK, Kurnaz S.
Software: Kurnaz S.
Supervision: Kiraz G, Mumcu AK, Kurnaz S.
Validation: Kiraz G, Mumcu AK, Kurnaz S.
Visualization: Kiraz G, Mumcu AK.
Writing - original draft: Kiraz G, Mumcu AK.
Writing - review & editing: Kiraz G, Mumcu AK, Kurnaz S.
REFERENCES
- 1. Kakehashi S, Stanley HR, Fitzgerald RJ. The effects of surgical exposures of dental pulps in germ-free and conventional laboratory rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1965;20:340-349.ArticlePubMed
- 2. Fabricius L, Dahlén G, Öhman AE, Möller AJ. Predominant indigenous oral bacteria isolated from infected root canals after varied times of closure. Scand J Dent Res 1982;90:134-144.ArticlePubMed
- 3. Ahmad IA. Rubber dam usage for endodontic treatment: a review. Int Endod J 2009;42:963-972.ArticlePubMed
- 4. Winkler R. Sanford Christie Barnum--inventor of the rubber dam. Quintessenz 1991;42:483-486.PubMed
- 5. Madarati AA. Why dentists don’t use rubber dam during endodontics and how to promote its usage? BMC Oral Health 2016;16:24.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 6. Patel S, Hamer S. A simple guide to using dental dam. Br Dent J 2021;230:644-650.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 7. European Society of Endodontology. Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J 2006;39:921-930.ArticlePubMed
- 8. Mala S, Lynch CD, Burke FM, Dummer PM. Attitudes of final year dental students to the use of rubber dam. Int Endod J 2009;42:632-638.ArticlePubMed
- 9. Petersson K, Olsson H, Söderström C, Fouilloux I, Jegat N, Lévy G. Undergraduate education in endodontology at 2 European dental schools: a comparison between the Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden and Faculty of Odontolgy, Paris 5 University (René Descartes), France. Eur J Dent Educ 2002;6:176-181.PubMed
- 10. Kaval ME, Kandemir Demirci G, Atesci AA, Sarsar F, Dindaroğlu F, Güneri P, et al. YouTube™ as an information source for regenerative endodontic treatment procedures: quality and content analysis. Int J Med Inform 2022;161:104732.ArticlePubMed
- 11. Kumar N, Pandey A, Venkatraman A, Garg N. Are video sharing web sites a useful source of information on hypertension? J Am Soc Hypertens 2014;8:481-490.ArticlePubMed
- 12. 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:e463-e468.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 13. Jung MJ, Seo MS. Assessment of reliability and information quality of YouTube videos about root canal treatment after 2016. BMC Oral Health 2022;22:494.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 14. Jamleh A, Aljohani SM, Alzamil FF, Aljuhayyim SM, Alsubaei MN, Alali SR, et al. Assessment of the educational value of endodontic access cavity preparation YouTube video as a learning resource for students. PLoS One 2022;17:e0272765.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 15. Nason K, Donnelly A, Duncan HF. YouTube as a patient-information source for root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2016;49:1194-1200.ArticlePubMed
- 16. Cesur Aydin K, Gunec HG. Quality of information on YouTube about artificial intelligence in dental radiology. J Dent Educ 2020;84:1166-1172.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 17. 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;49:189-192.ArticlePubMed
- 18. Bylund CL, Gueguen JA, Sabee CM, Imes RS, Li Y, Sanford AA. Provider-patient dialogue about Internet health information: an exploration of strategies to improve the provider-patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns 2007;66:346-352.ArticlePubMed
- 19. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, Donelan K, Catania J, Lee K, 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;5:e17.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 20. Ho A, McGrath C, Mattheos N. Social media patient testimonials in implant dentistry: information or misinformation? Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:791-800.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 21. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis 2016;22:202-208.ArticlePubMed
- 22. Delli K, Livas C, Vissink A, Spijkervet FK. Is YouTube useful as a source of information for Sjögren’s syndrome? Oral Dis 2016;22:196-201.ArticlePubMed
- 23. ElKarmi R, Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Scully C. YouTube as a source for parents’ education on early childhood caries. Int J Paediatr Dent 2017;27:437-443.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 24. Yağcı F. Evaluation of Youtube™ as a source of information about digital dentistry. Selcuk Dent J 2021;8:296-302.
- 25. Buyukcavus MH, Kurnaz S. Are YouTube™ videos a reliable source of information about root resorption? Forum Ortod 2020;16:201-209.Article
- 26. Demirci GK, Dindaroğlu F. YouTube™ as an information source on emergency treatment of traumatic dental injuries: cross-sectional content analysis. Selcuk Dent J 2021;8:808-816.
- 27. Jamleh A, Nassar M, Alissa H, Alfadley A. Evaluation of YouTube videos for patients’ education on periradicular surgery. PLoS One 2021;16:e0261309.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 28. Brockfeld T, Müller B, de Laffolie J. Video versus live lecture courses: a comparative evaluation of lecture types and results. Med Educ Online 2018;23:1555434.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 29. Paegle RD, Wilkinson EJ, Donnelly MB. Videotaped vs traditional lectures for medical students. Med Educ 1980;14:387-393.ArticlePubMed
- 30. Kalludi S, Punja D, Rao R, Dhar M. Is video podcast supplementation as a learning aid beneficial to dental students? J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:CC04-CC07.Article
- 31. Burns LE, Abbassi E, Qian X, Mecham A, Simeteys P, Mays KA. YouTube use among dental students for learning clinical procedures: a multi-institutional study. J Dent Educ 2020;84:1151-1158.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 32. Mukhopadhyay S, Kruger E, Tennant M. YouTube: a new way of supplementing traditional methods in dental education. J Dent Educ 2014;78:1568-1571.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 33. Seo CW, Cho AR, Park JC, Cho HY, Kim S. Dental students’ learning attitudes and perceptions of YouTube as a lecture video hosting platform in a flipped classroom in Korea. J Educ Eval Health Prof 2018;15:24.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 34. Duncan I, Yarwood-Ross L, Haigh C. YouTube as a source of clinical skills education. Nurse Educ Today 2013;33:1576-1580.ArticlePubMed
- 35. Ahmed HM, Cohen S, Lévy G, Steier L, Bukiet F. Rubber dam application in endodontic practice: an update on critical educational and ethical dilemmas. Aust Dent J 2014;59:457-463.ArticlePubMed
- 36. Kapitán M, Suchánková Kleplová T, Suchánek J. A comparison of three rubber dam systems in vivo--a preliminary study. Acta Med (Hradec Kralove) 2015;58:15-20.
- 37. Anabtawi MF, Gilbert GH, Bauer MR, Reams G, Makhija SK, Benjamin PL, et al. Rubber dam use during root canal treatment: findings from the Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144:179-186.PubMedPMC
- 38. Samaranayake LP, Reid J, Evans D. The efficacy of rubber dam isolation in reducing atmospheric bacterial contamination. ASDC J Dent Child 1989;56:442-444.PubMed
- 39. Lo AS, Esser MJ, Gordon KE. YouTube: a gauge of public perception and awareness surrounding epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav 2010;17:541-545.ArticlePubMed
- 40. Lena Y, Dindaroğlu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: a YouTube™ video analysis. Angle Orthod 2018;88:208-214.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 41. Kovalski LN, Cardoso FB, D’Avila OP, Corrêa AP, Martins MA, Martins MD, et al. Is the YouTube™ an useful source of information on oral leukoplakia? Oral Dis 2019;25:1897-1905.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 42. Cassidy JT, Fitzgerald E, Cassidy ES, Cleary M, Byrne DP, Devitt BM, et al. YouTube provides poor information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018;26:840-845.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 43. Özdal Zincir Ö, Bozkurt AP, Gaş S. Potential patient education of YouTube videos related to wisdom tooth surgical removal. J Craniofac Surg 2019;30:e481-e484.ArticlePubMed
KACD
, Arzu Kaya Mumcu
ePub Link
Cite
XML Download
