ArticleBMC oral health2026
Dental implant complications on YouTube™: an evaluation of video informativeness.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDental implant therapy is a highly predictable and widely utilized modality for the rehabilitation of partial and complete edentulism, spanning various configurations including single crowns, fixed dental prostheses, and overdentures. However, diverse surgical, biological, and mechanical complications can occur across all rehabilitation types, potentially compromising clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. YouTube™ is a widely used source of health-related information due to its accessibility, but the lack of peer review raises concerns regarding the accuracy and completeness of its content. Although previous studies have evaluated YouTube™ videos related to dental implants, those specifically focusing on implant-related complications remain limited. Therefore, this study aimed to critically evaluate the informativeness, quality, and demographic characteristics of YouTube™ videos related to dental implant complications and to assess the information they provide to patients and dental professionals.
methodsThis study evaluated the informativeness of YouTube™ videos on dental implant complications using a structured assessment framework derived from Newman and Carranza's Clinical Periodontology and Implantology. Using the keyword "dental implant complications" the first 300 videos were screened, and 139 eligible videos were included. Videos were assessed based on the presence of key complication-related topics defined in the reference textbook. In addition, video duration, number of likes, interaction rate, and audiovisual quality were analyzed.
resultsMost videos were classified as having a "moderate" level of information, with only 15.1% rated as "very good." Significant differences were observed in video duration, number of likes, interaction rates, and visual quality across different information levels. Video duration also varied significantly according to the upload source, while audiovisual quality differed based on publication year (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe limited informativeness of YouTube™ videos on dental implant complications may contribute to inadequate patient understanding and unrealistic expectations. These findings highlight the need to improve the quality of online patient education and emphasize the role of dental professionals in providing accurate and comprehensive digital health information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.