Evaluation of YouTube as an information source for denture care


Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol.129, no.4, pp.623-629, 2023 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 129 Issue: 4
  • Publication Date: 2023
  • Doi Number: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.045
  • Journal Name: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Page Numbers: pp.623-629
  • Erciyes University Affiliated: Yes


Statement of problem: Denture cleaning is indispensable to the maintenance of good oral and systemic health for denture users. Nowadays people often consult YouTube about health-related topics, including denture care. However, the quality of the information about denture care presented on YouTube is unknown. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness and quality of popular videos about denture care shared by different uploaders on YouTube and to evaluate the demographic characteristics of the videos. Material and methods: Google Trends showed that “denture cleaning” was the most searched keyword on the topic. This keyword was used to search YouTube videos. Of the 200 most-watched videos, 109 videos were selected for analysis. Included videos were analyzed for their demographic data, including number of views; number of likes, dislikes, and comments; days since upload; duration and number of subscribers; an 8-point usefulness score system, a global quality scale (GQS); video sources; target groups; and primary purposes of the videos. Statistical analyses were conducted by using the Kruskal-Wallis test, post hoc Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson chi-squared test, and Spearman correlation analysis, which was used to investigate the relationship among total content score, GQS score, and video demographics. Cohen kappa statistics was used to measure the reliability of the investigator's evaluations of the videos (α=.05). Results: Based on the usefulness score, 59.6% of the videos were classified as poor, 32.1% as moderate, and 8.2% as good. No statistically significant differences were found among usefulness scores according to the video demographics, except lower GQS score of poor content videos (P<.001). The overall mean ±standard deviation GQS score was 1.92 ±1.0 out of 5. Videos were primarily uploaded (38.5%) from commercial companies. No statistically significant difference was found between video sources and usefulness scores (P>.05). The number of videos with poor content was significantly higher than the number with moderate and good content among the videos primarily intended for the education of health professionals (P<.001). Conclusions: The majority (59.6%) of YouTube videos on denture care received poor content quality ratings, independent of video demographics. Therefore, YouTube is not suitable as the only source of information on denture care. Dentists and prosthodontists should take more responsibility for enriching the content of video-sharing platforms because this content can affect the behavior of patients and their attitudes about denture care.