Analyzing biomimetic dentistry YouTube videos' quality and content

Abstract

Aim: This study evaluated the quality and content of YouTube videos about biomimetic dentistry. Methodology: A keyword search for "biomimetic dentistry" was conducted on YouTube. It used only publicly available Internet data from searching YouTube with the default filter “Biomimetic Dentistry” on April 3, 2023. Of the 200 examined videos, only 91 fit the inclusion criteria; those 91 videos underwent a content quality evaluation. The videos' viewing rates were determined after their demographic characteristics were assessed. The information quality index (VIQI) and the Global Quality Scale (GQS) were used to evaluate the video quality. For the statistical analysis, the Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U, Chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests were used. Results: Most of the videos (n = 59) were labeled "low content," and healthcare practitioners uploaded the majority (91.2%) of them to YouTube. The most discussed subject was advantages and disadvantages (87.9%), followed by the definition of biomimetic dentistry (76.9%). The high-content video group's GQS and VIQI scores were significantly higher than low-content group. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between the VIQI and GQS (p < 0.05) (p = 0,001) and a positive correlation between the overall content, total VIQI, and total GQS scores. Conclusion: The material in YouTube videos about biomimetic dentistry is insufficient for use as a patient information tool. Biomimetic dentistry-related YouTube videos' quality and content were typically poor. Health practitioners should be aware of the content of video-sharing platforms and take responsibility for enriching video content. How to cite this article: Erdem Hepşenoğlu Y, Değirmencioğlu D, Topbaş C. Analyzing biomimetic dentistry YouTube videos' quality and content. Int Dent Res 2023;13(S1):44-49. https://doi.org/10.5577/idr.2023.vol13.s1.7 Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.