<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

Objective: The present study aimed to determine how the popularity of ‘Do It Yourself’ (DIY) aligner videos available on YouTube relates to authorship, video content, quality and reliability, and to determine why DIY aligners appeal to consumers.
Methods: The Google Trends website was interrogated to identify the most frequently used search terms regarding DIY aligners which were subsequently applied to a search of the YouTube website. One hundred twenty-three videos were assessed for completeness of content, reliability (using a modified version of the DISCERN tool) and quality using the Global Quality Score (GQS). The relationship between the variables and authorship, popularity, financial interest, and recommendations were assessed using Pearson Correlation Coefficients.
Results: Laypeople produced the majority of the videos (73%). Dentists/Orthodontists uploaded only 4% of the videos, and dental professional bodies uploaded none. Most videos (86%) were content poor, unreliable (average DISCERN score of 1) and of low quality (average GQS of 2). The more popular, reliable and superior the quality of the video, the greater the number of views, likes and viewing rate (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.05). Conversely, authors with a financial interest and lower quality and less reliable videos were more likely to recommend DIY aligners. Consumers sought DIY aligner treatment due to a reduced cost.
Conclusions: YouTube should not be considered as a viable nor reliable source of DIY aligner information for patients or the public. Dentists/Orthodontists should be encouraged to publish comprehensive and more informative YouTube content related to DIY aligners.
</abstract>

Objective: The present study aimed to determine how the popularity of ‘Do It Yourself’ (DIY) aligner videos available on YouTube relates to authorship, video content, quality and reliability, and to determine why DIY aligners appeal to consumers.
Methods: The Google Trends website was interrogated to identify the most frequently used search terms regarding DIY aligners which were subsequently applied to a search of the YouTube website. One hundred twenty-three videos were assessed for completeness of content, reliability (using a modified version of the DISCERN tool) and quality using the Global Quality Score (GQS). The relationship between the variables and authorship, popularity, financial interest, and recommendations were assessed using Pearson Correlation Coefficients.
Results: Laypeople produced the majority of the videos (73%). Dentists/Orthodontists uploaded only 4% of the videos, and dental professional bodies uploaded none. Most videos (86%) were content poor, unreliable (average DISCERN score of 1) and of low quality (average GQS of 2). The more popular, reliable and superior the quality of the video, the greater the number of views, likes and viewing rate (p < 0.05). Conversely, authors with a financial interest and lower quality and less reliable videos were more likely to recommend DIY aligners. Consumers sought DIY aligner treatment due to a reduced cost.
Conclusions: YouTube should not be considered as a viable nor reliable source of DIY aligner information for patients or the public. Dentists/Orthodontists should be encouraged to publish comprehensive and more informative YouTube content related to DIY aligners.

The appeal of ‘Do It Yourself’ orthodontic aligners: A YouTube analysis

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

left-running-head

COLLINS, LUC, KARADENIZ, PETOCZ, FLORES-MIR AND KARADENIZ

right-running-head

A YouTube analysis of DIY orthodontic aligners

Objective: The present study aimed to determine how the popularity of ‘Do It Yourself’ (DIY) aligner videos available on YouTube relates to authorship, video...

The appeal of ‘Do It Yourself’ orthodontic aligners: A YouTube analysis

Article Category: research-article

Publié en ligne: 28 oct. 2021

Pages: 321 - 332

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2021.036

© 2021 Megan Collins et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.