ArticleBMC oral health2026
Educational quality and viewer engagement of Youtube videos on ceramic implants: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCeramic 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsViewer 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42426765What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.