Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34925512›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2021

Esthetic Dentistry on Twitter: Benefits and Dangers.

Nesreen A Salim, Fahed Jubair, Yazan M Hassona, Sarah Izriqi, Dana Al-Fuqaha'a

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nesreen A SalimProsthodontic Department, School of Dentistry, The University of Jordan. Consultant in Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics, The University of Jordan Hospital, Amman, Jordan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5355-2269
Fahed JubairComputer Engineering Department, School of Engineering, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9311-807X
Yazan M HassonaOral Medicine and Special Care Dentistry, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1480-8134
Sarah IzriqiSchool of Dentistry, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Dana Al-Fuqaha'aSchool of Dentistry, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe demand for esthetic dentistry is growing, and social media constitute the main driving force behind this revolution. Twitter is a leading social media platform; however, there is a lack of research on the pattern of communications and the impact of Twitter on esthetic dentistry. The purpose of this study was to analyze the content of tweets related to esthetic dentistry and to investigate how Twitter has affected the perception of, and demand for, esthetic dentistry. Moreover, it aimed to assess the potential benefits and risks of esthetic dentistry advertising strategies on Twitter as a potential social media platform. MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing a specialized web scrapping tool made available by the Python programming language, a total of 54,000 public tweets were downloaded from Twitter at real-time by matching specific keywords. The downloaded tweets were manually filtered, and 13,787 tweets were included and categorized into four tweet sets by content.

resultsThe main categories were tweets regarding specific cosmetic procedure, totaling 56.53% (43.2% for veneers, 13.3% for whitening), advertisements (36.72%), information (5.53%), and general cosmetic dentistry (1.22%). Negative opinions towards veneers and whitening were the most common themes (68.03% and 43.44%). For veneers, illegal use for kids was the most common negative theme (59.7%) and being destructive for whitening (86.3%). Positive opinions counted 6.26% of veneers and 4.3% of whitening tweets. Advertising for whitening products was the second most common between all tweets (16.6%), and advertising for dental practices was the third (14.7%). Presenting facilities/services was the most common marketing strategy for dental practices (49.7%). Twitter was weakly used to circulate educational content (5.5%) and to post reviews (0.75%).

conclusionTwitter was extensively used to share experiences/opinions towards dental cosmetic interventions. Advertising is another vital use of this platform. However, circulating information was the least common use of this social media. Additionally, tweeters were rarely to post online reviews and specific advices and recommendations regarding esthetic dentistry. Moreover, females tended to participate and tweet more significantly in cosmetic-related topics than males. This platform should be tailored efficiently to target users' priorities and to improve health literacy and self-care. Twitter was weakly used to circulate educational content according to this study and rarely used to share online reviews.

Identifiers

PMID34925512
PMCPMC8674081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.