Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 28, 2025
Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees
Published on: July 15, 2009
Are YouTube videos on complete arch fixed implant-supported prostheses useful for patient education?
Nirmal Kurian1, Kevin George Varghese2, Smitha Daniel3
1Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Christian Dental College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.
Statement Of Problem:
Complete arch fixed implant-supported prostheses have gained substantial popularity as a treatment option for patients with edentulism or a failing dentition. While YouTube is a leading source of health-related information videos, the usefulness and quality of videos on YouTube about complete arch fixed implant-supported prostheses are unclear.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of videos on complete arch fixed implant-supported prostheses and assess their usefulness for the general population as an educational resource.
Material And Methods:
An electronic search for "complete arch fixed treatment using dental implants" was conducted on YouTube on October 10, 2021. The videos in English with a duration between 4 and 20 minutes were considered for the analysis. A total of 89 videos were subjected to quantitative analysis by using a usefulness score. Additionally, to evaluate video quality, 5-point global quality scale (GQS) criteria were applied. A 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare mean scores among different subgroups. The Pearson correlation analysis investigated the relationship among the usefulness score, GQS score, and video demographics, which include video content, source, type (academic or nonacademic), total views, and upload days (the days since the video was uploaded to YouTube) (α=.05).
Results:
The mean number of views for the 89 selected videos was 193 321 with a mean daily upload of 1241. The mean ±standard deviation usefulness score was 1.55 ±1.35, with 78.7% of the videos rated poor, 20.2% moderate, and 1.1% excellent. The majority of videos included procedures involved (44.9%) and advantages (41.9%), and the least discussed topics were contraindications (7.9%) and prognosis and survival (6.7%). The GQS scoring had a mean score of 1.98 ±0.78 out of a total score of 5. While statistically significant differences were not found among the video source, total views or upload days, and usefulness score (P>.05), significant differences were found between the type of videos and usefulness score (P<.001).
Conclusions:
The majority of videos on complete arch fixed implant-supported rehabilitation were rated as poor in usefulness for patient education. Quality videos on implant-supported fixed rehabilitation were lacking on YouTube (GQS score <1.50), with most videos consisting of marketing or promotional content rather than unbiased educational information.
