Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos as a Source of Information on Oral Health During Pregnancy: A Cross-Sectional Content Analysis

Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos as a Source of Information on Oral Health During Pregnancy: A Cross-Sectional Content Analysis | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos as a Source of Information on Oral Health During Pregnancy: A Cross-Sectional Content Analysis Nazan Kocak Topbas, Halil Altun, Kübra Albayrak, Fatıma Sümeyra Çetin This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8704109/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background This study aimed to evaluate the content quality, reliability, and informational value of YouTube videos regarding oral and dental health during pregnancy, while examining the correlation between quality, source type, and user engagement metrics (e.g., number of views, likes, and comments). Methods A systematic search was conducted on YouTube using the keywords “oral and dental health during pregnancy.” Two independent reviewers from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology assessed 195 videos. Data were categorized by content quality (poor, moderate, good, excellent) and source type (dentist, specialist, physician/other). Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and Scheffé post-hoc tests. Inter-rater reliability was determined via Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Results Of the 175 videos meeting the inclusion criteria, 49.1% were classified as poor, 29.1% as moderate, and 21.7% as good; no videos reached the "excellent" threshold. Content quality was significantly associated with video duration (F(2,174) = 26.48, p < 0.001), indicating that higher-quality videos were typically longer. Significant differences were observed in engagement metrics including view count, likes, comments, and interaction index based on the video source (p < 0.05). Notably, videos uploaded by physicians and non-dental sources demonstrated higher engagement despite varying quality levels. Inter-rater reliability was excellent across all categories (Kappa = 0.96–1.00, p < 0.001). Conclusions The majority of YouTube content concerning oral health during pregnancy is of poor or moderate quality. While engagement is high, the lack of "excellent" evidence-based information poses a risk to public health. There is a critical need for dental professionals and specialists to produce high-quality, accurate digital content to improve digital health literacy and ensure the dissemination of evidence-based information for expectant mothers. Oral Health Pregnancy Social Media YouTube Health Literacy Introduction Oral health care during pregnancy is often neglected and misunderstood by physicians, dentists, and patients alike. Previous studies have demonstrated that certain prenatal oral diseases may contribute to adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes [ 1 ]. Periodontitis, for instance, has been associated with preterm birth and low birth weight, whereas elevated levels of cariogenic bacteria in mothers can increase the risk of dental caries in their infants [ 2 ]. In contrast, gingivitis and pregnancy tumors are benign oral conditions that warrant monitoring but rarely require invasive intervention [ 3 ]. Comprehensive prenatal care should therefore include routine oral health screening, counseling on proper oral hygiene, and timely referral for dental evaluation when necessary. Moreover, dental procedures such as diagnostic radiography, periodontal therapy, restorations, and extractions are considered safe during pregnancy and are preferably performed during the second trimester [ 4 ]. Approximately one-quarter of women of reproductive age experience dental caries resulting from the fermentation of dietary carbohydrates by oral bacteria [ 5 ]. Pregnant women are particularly susceptible to dental caries due to increased consumption of sugary foods, elevated oral acidity, and reduced motivation for maintaining oral hygiene [ 6 ]. Furthermore, children of mothers with high levels of dental caries are more likely to develop caries themselves [ 7 ]. Pregnancy-associated oral tumors, which occur in approximately 5% of all pregnancies, are clinically indistinguishable from pyogenic granulomas. These vascular lesions are typically erythematous, smooth, and lobulated, most commonly affecting the gingiva [ 8 ], although the tongue, palate, and buccal mucosa may also be involved. Management is generally conservative unless the lesions bleed or interfere with mastication [ 9 ]. Even in the absence of periodontal disease, teeth may exhibit temporary mobility during pregnancy due to hormonal changes, particularly elevated progesterone and estrogen levels, which influence the periodontium [ 10 ]. In cases of uncomplicated tooth mobility unrelated to periodontal disease, clinicians should reassure patients that the condition is transient and not indicative of future tooth loss [ 11 ]. Periodontitis is a destructive inflammatory condition of the periodontium that affects approximately 30% of women of childbearing age [ 6 ]. This process involves bacterial infiltration of the periodontium, where toxins produced by the bacteria elicit a chronic inflammatory response, resulting in the breakdown and destruction of the periodontal tissues and the formation of infected pockets. Consequently, the affected teeth begin to loosen [ 12 ]. In women with periodontitis who have experienced preterm birth, elevated levels of these inflammatory markers have been found in the amniotic fluid compared to healthy controls [ 13 ]. Another study reported the presence of minimal levels of oral bacteria in the amniotic fluid and placental tissues of women with periodontitis who delivered prematurely [ 14 ]. Periodontitis has been associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes; however, the precise mechanisms underlying these associations remain unclear and continue to be a subject of debate [ 15 ]. In a systematic review by Vettore et al. [ 16 ], which examined studies conducted between 1996 and 2006 across twelve countries and three U.S. states, 24 studies reported a positive association between periodontitis and preterm birth, low birth weight, or both. Conversely, the large-scale Obstetrics and Periodontal Therapy (OPT) study conducted in the United States by Michalowicz et al. [ 17 ], found that periodontal treatment administered during the second trimester did not significantly reduce the incidence of preterm birth or low birth weight. Despite these conflicting findings, the American Academy of Periodontology recommends that all women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant undergo a comprehensive periodontal examination and receive appropriate treatment as part of prenatal care [ 18 ]. Physicians and dentists can address the challenges of providing oral health care during pregnancy through education, effective communication, and the establishment of ongoing collaborative relationships [ 19 ]. Dental radiography may be performed during pregnancy when clinically indicated for acute diagnostic purposes [ 20 ]; however, whenever possible, such procedures should be deferred until after the first trimester [ 21 ]. Exposure to low-dose radiation does not significantly increase the risk of teratogenic effects, spontaneous miscarriage, or congenital malformations. Clinical evidence indicates that radiation doses below 0.05 Gy during pregnancy are not associated with any observed non-cancer health effects [ 22 ]. In general, dental procedures are best scheduled during the second trimester, after organogenesis is complete, although urgent dental care can be safely provided at any stage of gestation [ 23 ]. During the third trimester, additional considerations such as positional discomfort and compression of the inferior vena cava may arise; placing the patient in a left lateral position, encouraging frequent position changes, and keeping appointments brief can help minimize these complications [ 24 ]. Information about oral and dental health during pregnancy can be obtained from various sources, including physicians, dentists, and healthcare institutions. However, in the digital age, many patients increasingly rely on the internet to seek preliminary information about health conditions and available treatment options [ 25 ]. Today, the internet provides rapid and convenient access to information on a wide range of health-related topics. Among the most frequently used online platforms for this purpose are YouTube™ (Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, California, USA) and Google (Mountain View, California, USA), where patients commonly seek information about pregnancy and oral health. YouTube™, launched in 2005, is the world’s second most visited website and the largest video-sharing platform, offering unrestricted and free access to its content. Approximately 100 million videos are viewed daily, and tens of thousands of new videos are uploaded by users each day [ 26 ]. Videos concerning dental health are often uploaded by dental clinics, dentists, physicians, professional organizations, and even patients themselves [ 27 ]. However, because YouTube™ lacks a formal content verification or peer-review mechanism, it may contain misleading or inaccurate information alongside reliable content [ 28 ]. Despite these limitations, YouTube™ has become an increasingly influential source of health information. Several studies evaluating health-related video content on YouTube™ have highlighted concerns regarding the accuracy, reliability, and overall quality of the information provided, with most videos deemed inadequate [ 29 ]. The aim of this study is to evaluate the informational content, quality, and reliability of videos related to oral and dental health during pregnancy available on the YouTube™ video-sharing platform. The null hypothesis of this study is that the content and quality of YouTube™ videos related to oral and dental health during pregnancy are sufficient to adequately inform patients. Materials and Methods In this study, the keyword “oral and dental health during pregnancy” was selected by the observers to be entered into the YouTube™ (Google LLC, USA) video-sharing platform. Prior to conducting the search, all browser history, cache, and cookies were cleared to prevent personalized recommendations and ensure unbiased search results. No specific filters (such as upload date, view count, or duration) were applied during the search process. A total of 195 video links retrieved from the search results between [insert start date (August 1, 2024)] and [insert end date (September 1, 2024)] were recorded for subsequent analysis. Since the study utilized only publicly available data, ethical approval was not required. Video Analysis To determine which videos would be included in the study, all videos retrieved from the YouTube™ platform were watched in their entirety. The inclusion and exclusion criteria defined by Elkarmi et al. [ 30 ], were adopted as the basis for video selection. Videos were eligible if they addressed oral and dental health during pregnancy, did not contain advertisements, had audible Turkish narration, were open to public comments, were not part of a televised program, and had no commercial intent. Accordingly, a total of 175 eligible videos were independently reviewed and evaluated by two dental research assistants specializing in Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (A.K. and Ç.F.S.). Each video was evaluated according to nine specific content categories related to oral and dental health during pregnancy: (1) routine dental check-ups during pregnancy; (2) the impact of oral hygiene on fetal health; (3) referral of pregnant women to dentists; (4) the association between periodontal health and preterm birth or low birth weight; (5) correction of misinformation; (6) tobacco use and gingival health; (7) infant and child health; (8) proper brushing and flossing techniques; and (9) nutrition during pregnancy. Each content parameter was assigned a score of 1 if it was present in the video and 0 if it was absent. Furthermore, the overall content quality of each video was categorized into four levels: poor , fair , good , and excellent [ 31 – 32 ]. Based on the total content score, videos were classified as follows: 0–2 points indicated poor quality, 3–4 points fair quality, 5–7 points good quality, and 8–9 points excellent quality [ 31 – 32 ]. In accordance with previous studies, the interaction index and view rate were calculated using the following formulas [ 33 ]. Interaction Index (%) = ((Number of Likes – Number of Dislikes) / Number of Views) × 100 View Rate (%) = (Number of Views / Time Since Upload) × 100. Each video included in the study was scored based on the quality of the information it presented [ 30 ]. Videos were also categorized by uploader type, video source, and intended purpose, and their visual quality was also assessed. Each video uploader was categorized as a general dentist, specialist dentist (pedodontist, endodontist, prosthodontics, restorative dentistry, orthodontics, oral and maxillofacial surgery, periodontology), medical doctor (general practitioner, obstetrics and gynecology, perinatology), or other (midwife specialist). Statistical Analysis Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS version 25.0 statistical software package (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The assumption of normality was tested to determine the suitability of applying parametric statistical methods. Normality is a fundamental prerequisite that requires the data distribution to approximate a normal curve for parametric analyses to be valid. In this study, skewness and kurtosis coefficients were calculated to evaluate the symmetry and peakedness of the data distribution, respectively. Skewness indicates whether the distribution is skewed to the left or right, whereas kurtosis reflects the degree to which the distribution is more peaked or flatter than a normal distribution. As the values of these coefficients approach 0, the data distribution is considered to approximate normality. According to George and Mallery [ 34 ], values within the range of ± 2 are generally accepted as indicative of a normal distribution. In the present study, the calculated skewness and kurtosis values were within this acceptable range, confirming that the assumption of normality was satisfied. Based on the obtained results, the dataset was found to meet the assumption of normal distribution; therefore, the use of parametric statistical methods specifically one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was deemed appropriate for further analyses. To evaluate whether video characteristics differed according to content score categories and video sources, one-way ANOVA was performed in accordance with the study objectives. When statistically significant differences were identified through ANOVA, the Scheffé post-hoc test was applied to determine the specific groups responsible for the observed differences. The Scheffé test is recognized as a conservative method that effectively controls the Type I error rate in multiple comparisons, particularly when group sizes are unequal. Compared with other post-hoc procedures, it provides more robust results and minimizes the likelihood of false-positive findings [ 35 ]. A p -value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant throughout the study. Additionally, inter-rater reliability was analyzed to ensure the consistency of scoring in the content and quality evaluations of the videos. In this context, Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was calculated for the content score categories. Cohen’s Kappa is a statistical measure that quantifies the level of agreement between evaluators while accounting for agreement that may occur by chance. A Kappa value of 1.00 indicates perfect agreement, whereas values above 0.80 are generally interpreted as reflecting strong agreement [ 36 ]. Results In line with the objectives of the study, a total of 195 videos retrieved from the YouTube™ search engine were examined. Of these, 175 videos met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Descriptive data for these 175 videos including the number of views, video duration (minutes), time since upload (days), number of likes, number of comments, interaction index, and viewing rate are presented in Table 1 . Table 1 Descriptive statistical data (n = 175) Variables Min Max Median Mean ± SD Number of views 3.00 152 159.00 2400.25 ± 12340.92 Video duration (min) 0.13 54.10 1.57 3.87 ± 7.88 Elapsed time (days) 143.00 5,11 1682.0 1908.78 ± 1127.90 Likes 0.00 771.00 2.00 14.54 ± 61.52 Total Comments 0.00 128.00 0.00 1.73 ± 10.52 Interaction index 0.00 22.22 0.63 2.20 ± 3.92 Viewing rate 0.25 5,919 9.74 124.85 ± 500.58 SD: standard deviation. The number of views ranged from 3 to 152,000, with a mean of 2,400.25 (SD = 12,340.92). Video duration ranged from 0.13 to 54.10 minutes, with a mean of 3.87 minutes (SD = 7.88). The time since upload varied between 143 and 5,110 days, with a mean of 1,908.78 days (SD = 1,127.90). The number of likes ranged from 0 to 771, with a mean of 14.54 (SD = 61.52). The number of comments ranged from 0 to 128, with a mean of 1.73 (SD = 10.52). | The interaction index, which reflects user engagement with the videos, ranged from 0.00 to 22.22, with a mean of 2.20 (SD = 3.92). Finally, the view rate an indicator of how frequently videos are viewed relative to their time online ranged from 0.25 to 5,919.00, with a mean of 124.85 (SD = 500.58). Table 2 presents the inter-rater reliability analysis for the content score categories using Cohen’s Kappa (K) statistic. In the present study, Kappa values across all content categories ranged from 0.96 to 1.00, demonstrating a high level of consistency between evaluators. The Kappa value for overall video quality classification was calculated as 0.982. Perfect agreement ( κ = 1.00) was observed in the categories of referral to dental care , periodontal health , correction of misinformation , tobacco use and gingival health , infant and child health , and nutrition during pregnancy . The lowest agreement was observed in the category addressing the impact of oral hygiene on fetal health ( κ = 0.96), which still indicates an almost perfect level of agreement. All results were statistically significant ( p < 0.001), confirming the reliability of the scoring process and supporting both the validity of the evaluation method and the robustness of the dataset used for further analyses. Table 2 Inter-researcher agreement for content score categories assessed using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient Content Score Categories Kappa (κ) p Routine dental checkups 0.98 < 0.001 Oral hygiene & fetal health 0.96 < 0.001 Referring pregnant women to dentist 1.00 < 0.001 Periodontal health & miscarriage/LBW 1.00 < 0.001 Correcting false information 1.00 < 0.001 Tobacco use & periodontal health 1.00 < 0.001 Infant and child health 1.00 < 0.001 Brushing and flossing 0.99 < 0.001 Nutrition during pregnancy 1.00 < 0.001 κ: Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Table 3 presents the inter-rater reliability analysis for video quality category scores using Cohen’s Kappa statistic. The table compares the ratings assigned by two independent evaluators, classifying video quality as Poor (1), Fair (2), Good (3), or Excellent (4). The results demonstrated a high level of agreement between evaluators, with a Kappa value of 0.982 ( p < 0.001), indicating an almost perfect level of reliability. The majority of videos were rated as poor (49.1%) or fair (29.1%), while 21.7% were categorized as good ; none were rated as excellent . These findings confirm the strong consistency between evaluators in assessing video quality and support the reliability and validity of the classification process. Table 3 Inter-researcher agreement on video quality category scores Second Researcher Primary Researcher Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Total Category 1 85 (48.6%) 1 (0.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 86 (49.1%) Category 2 0 (0.0%) 50 (28.6%) 1 (0.6%) 0 (0.0%) 51 (29.1%) Category 3 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 38 (21.7%) 0 (0.0%) 38 (21.7%) Category 4 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Total 85 (48.6%) 51 (29.1%) 39 (22.3%) 0 (0.0%) 175 (100%) Notes: Values are presented as n (%). κ: Cohen’s Kappa coefficient κ = 0.982, p < 0.001 (Excellent agreement between researchers). Video quality categories: 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Excellent. Table 4 presents a comparison of various video characteristics across three content quality categories ( poor , fair , and good ). To identify significant differences between groups, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. The analysis revealed a significant difference in video duration among the content quality groups ( F (2,174) = 26.48, p < 0.001). Videos classified as good quality had a significantly longer mean duration (M = 10.98 min, SD = 14.47) compared to those of fair (M = 2.91 min, SD = 2.81) and poor (M = 1.28 min, SD = 1.23) quality. Table 4 Comparison of video features according to content quality Features Poor (n = 86) Medium(n = 51) Good (n = 38) F(2,174) p* Views (Mean ± SD) 3056 ± 17148 2316 ± 4831 1031 ± 2487 0.35 0.71 Duration (min) 1.28 ± 1.23 a 2.91 ± 2.81 a 10.98 ± 14.47 b 26.48 < 0.001 Elapsed time (d) 1940 ± 1257 a,b 2147 ± 967 a 1519 ± 922 b 3.54 0.03 Likes (Mean ± SD) 14.62 ± 83.46 18.65 ± 33.44 8.87 ± 15.15 0.27 0.76 Comments (Mean ± SD) 2.07 ± 14.20 1.16 ± 4.48 1.74 ± 5.42 0.12 0.89 Interaction Index 2.04 ± 4.03 2.00 ± 3.00 2.83 ± 4.72 0.62 0.54 Viewing Rate 135.0 ± 656.8 158.0 ± 351.0 57.3 ± 119.9 0.47 0.62 Notes: Different superscript letters (ᵃ,ᵇ) indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to the Scheffé post hoc test (p < 0.05). One-way ANOVA test, (p < 0.05) is considered significant. SD: Standard deviation The time elapsed since upload also differed significantly among the groups ( F (2,174) = 3.54, p = 0.03), with fair -quality videos having been online longer than good -quality videos. Other variables including the number of views, likes, comments, and the interaction index did not show statistically significant differences across content quality categories ( p > 0.05). The Scheffé post-hoc test, selected for its robustness in multiple comparisons with unequal group sizes, was used to determine the specific sources of variation. While some significant differences were identified among content quality groups, pairs indicated by the same letter were not statistically different from each other ( p > 0.05). Overall, these findings indicate that video duration and the time since upload are key factors associated with content quality, and the Scheffé test effectively clarified group-level differences. Table 5 presents a comparison of video characteristics based on the type of source, with videos categorized into three groups: general dentists ( n = 101), specialist dentists ( n = 43), and medical doctors/other sources ( n = 31). The table provides the mean (M), standard deviation (SD), median, and range (minimum–maximum) for each variable, along with the results of the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Table 5 Comparison of video features according to video source type Features Dentist (n = 101) Specialist dentist (n = 43) Medical doctor & others (n = 31) F (2,174) p* Views (Mean ± SD) 831 ± 3100 a 1648 ± 3390 a 8557 ± 28052 b 4.97 0.01 Duration (min) 3.38 ± 4.51 a,b 6.78 ± 13.95 b 1.41 ± 0.87 a 4.85 0.01 Elapsed time (d) 2054 ± 1150 a 1469 ± 901 b 2047 ± 1212 a 4.51 0.01 Likes (Mean ± SD) 7.13 ± 18.83 a 14.37 ± 28.29 a,b 38.94 ± 137.30 b 3.25 0.04 Comments (Mean ± SD) 0.61 ± 3.25 a 1.28 ± 4.86 a,b 6.00 ± 23.46 b 3.24 0.04 Interaction Index 1.96 ± 2.94 a,b 3.90 ± 6.13 b 0.63 ± 0.84 a 7.24 0.01 Viewing Rate 41.6 ± 134.4 a 137.6 ± 337.8 a,b 378.4 ± 1069.3 b 5.68 < 0.001 Notes : Different superscript letters ( a,b ) indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to the Scheffé post-hoc test (p < 0.05). One-way ANOVA test, p < 0.05 is considered significant. SD: Standard deviation. Significant differences were observed in video duration ( F (2,174) = 26.48, p < 0.001) and time since upload ( F (2,174) = 3.54, p = 0.03) across the content quality groups. In addition, comparisons based on video source revealed statistically significant differences for the following variables: number of views ( F (2,174) = 4.97, p = 0.01), video duration ( F (2,174) = 4.85, p = 0.01), time since upload ( F (2,174) = 4.51, p = 0.01), number of likes ( F (2,174) = 3.25, p = 0.04), number of comments ( F (2,174) = 3.24, p = 0.04), interaction index ( F (2,174) = 7.24, p = 0.01), and view rate ( F (2,174) = 5.68, p < 0.001). These findings indicate that multiple video characteristics differ significantly according to both content quality and source, emphasizing the influence of video origin on the quality, visibility, and engagement metrics of YouTube™ videos related to oral and dental health during pregnancy. A statistically significant difference in the number of views was observed among the video source groups ( F (2,174) = 4.97, p = 0.01). According to the Scheffé post-hoc analysis, videos uploaded by medical doctors and other sources had a significantly higher mean number of views (M = 8,556.97, SD = 28,052.24) compared to those uploaded by general dentists (M = 830.88, SD = 3,100.43) and specialist dentists (M = 1,647.88, SD = 3,389.88) ( p < 0.05). This finding indicates that videos from medical professionals and other sources reached a broader audience. Significant differences were also observed among the groups in terms of video duration ( F (2,174) = 4.85, p = 0.01). Scheffé post-hoc results showed that videos uploaded by specialist dentists had a significantly longer mean duration (M = 6.78 min, SD = 13.95) compared to those from general dentists (M = 3.38 min) and medical doctors or other sources (M = 1.41 min) ( p < 0.05). This suggests that specialist dentists tend to produce more detailed and comprehensive video content. A statistically significant difference was also found among the groups regarding the time elapsed since upload ( F (2,174) = 4.51, p = 0.01); videos uploaded by specialist dentists (M = 1,469.23 days, SD = 901.23) had been online for a shorter period compared with the other two groups. Furthermore, significant differences were observed for the number of likes, total comments, ( p < 0.05), with videos uploaded by medical doctors and other sources generally exhibiting higher engagement rates. Notably, a significant difference was found among the groups in terms of the interaction index ( F (2,174) = 7.24, p = 0.01), with the highest interaction index observed in videos uploaded by specialist dentists. Similarly, a significant difference in view rate was detected ( F (2,174) = 5.68, p < 0.001), with videos from medical doctors and other sources exhibiting the highest view rates. According to the Scheffé post-hoc test results, groups sharing the same superscript letter (e.g., “a” or “b”) in the table do not differ significantly from one another. Different superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups, thereby enhancing the clarity and interpretability of results in multiple group comparisons ( p < 0.05). Discussion The primary aim of this study was to emphasize the importance of oral and dental health during pregnancy and to evaluate the quality of related content available on YouTube™. These findings are particularly significant, as maternal oral health is closely associated with both maternal and fetal well-being. YouTube™ is among the most widely used online platforms for accessing health-related information [ 37 ]. Therefore, ensuring that the health information disseminated through such digital media is accurate, evidence-based, and reliable is of critical importance. During pregnancy, the demand for information concerning oral health tends to increase, leading many individuals to seek easily accessible online sources. Previous studies have examined the reliability and quality of YouTube™ videos across a wide range of medical and dental topics, revealing variable results regarding their accuracy and educational value [ 38 ]. In this study, YouTube™ videos related to “oral and dental health during pregnancy” were reviewed and evaluated by two independent dental professionals using a structured content scoring system. Based on the findings, the null hypothesis stating that “the content and quality of YouTube™ videos related to oral and dental health during pregnancy are sufficient to inform patients” was rejected. The overall content quality and reliability of the analyzed videos were found to be inadequate for providing accurate and comprehensive patient education. The study was designed to assess the quality of information presented in YouTube™ videos addressing oral and dental health during pregnancy. Videos were analyzed across nine thematic categories encompassing information delivery, user engagement metrics, and content reliability. Content scoring was conducted independently by two reviewers, yielding a high level of inter-rater reliability, with Cohen’s Kappa values ranging from 0.96 to 1.00. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were observed between content quality groups in terms of video duration, time since upload, and interaction parameters. The study by Çardakçı Bahar et al. [ 39 ] presents a cross-sectional analysis examining the accuracy and reliability of YouTube videos related to pregnancy using standardized tools such as the Global Quality Scale (GQS), DISCERN, and JAMA criteria. This study primarily focused on the scientific validity and clarity of the videos rather than the overall quality of information, and evaluations were performed using structured assessment measures. A common feature between their study and the presented study is the shared methodological approach toward evaluating online health content. However, the evaluation criteria and levels of analytical focus differ. While the presented study emphasizes the breadth and diversity of content categories, the study by Çardakçı Bahar et al. [ 39 ] highlights scientific accuracy through structured quality indices. Similarly, the study conducted in Italy by Cagetti et al. [ 40 ] reported that mothers with higher education levels experienced knowledge gaps regarding oral and dental health during pregnancy and that the vast majority did not receive professional counseling. This finding highlights not only the insufficiency of digital content but also the limited provision of direct information from healthcare professionals. While our study identified that most digital content related to pregnancy and oral health is of low quality, the study by Cagetti et al. [ 40 ], through a patient-centered approach, that the healthcare system itself is not adequately fulfilling its educational role. Both studies underscore the critical importance of healthcare professionals in raising awareness about oral health during pregnancy. In a study conducted by Szmuda et al. [ 41 ] evaluating YouTube videos related to COVID-19 and pregnancy, it was reported that the majority of the content was produced by non-professional sources and exhibited low levels of informational reliability. Using objective assessment tools such as DISCERN and JAMA, the analysis revealed that although videos based on personal experiences received high view counts, they were generally poor in terms of informational quality. Although a general structured scale was not used in the data analysis of our study, these findings largely overlap with the results of our study. These findings align closely with the results of our study. Both studies demonstrate that a substantial portion of health-related content presented on digital platforms lacks scientific accuracy and credibility. Furthermore, the relatively low number of professional content creators and the limited engagement with their content highlight the risk of digital inequality in health communication. In this context, the active participation of healthcare professionals on digital platforms and the promotion of high-quality content creation are considered strategic necessities for safeguarding public health. In the study conducted by Qu et al. [ 42 ], the content quality of YouTube™ videos addressing the prevention of valproic acid use during pregnancy was evaluated, and only 6.5% of the videos were classified as “very useful.” The study emphasized that most videos lacked essential information regarding diagnosis and treatment and provided only superficial content. These findings are consistent with the results of our content analysis of videos focused on oral and dental health during pregnancy. Both studies demonstrate that health-related information disseminated via digital platforms is largely inadequate and lacks scientific rigor. Additionally, it is noteworthy that professional sources are not only fewer in number but also associated with higher content quality. This highlights the necessity for healthcare professionals to have a more visible presence on digital platforms and for the production of high-quality content to be actively supported. In order to ensure public access to accurate health information and to enhance digital health literacy, initiatives aimed at strengthening the presence and engagement of healthcare professionals in digital media are considered crucial for public health. Addressing the lack of information in this area is of critical importance, particularly for ensuring appropriate patient guidance and enhancing health literacy. As highlighted in guidelines published by the American Dental Association (ADA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, clinical decisions such as those involving radiographic examinations should be based on evidence-based information [ 43 ]. However, the findings of this study indicate that the majority of health-related content on digital platforms such as YouTube™ lacks scientific coherence and clarity. Indeed, previous studies evaluating similar digital health content have also emphasized the superficial nature of many videos. For example, in topics such as oral cancer, risk factors are often inadequately explained, and informational depth is lacking [ 44 ]. Similarly, in a study on oral hygiene education videos on YouTube™, Smyth et al. [ 45 ] reported that none of the included videos were engaging, not all topics were covered, and the authors expressed concerns about the messages presented in some of the content. The findings of the present study revealed that individuals using YouTube™ as a source of information regarding oral and dental health during pregnancy are not able to access sufficient and reliable information. In this study, the majority of the videos were rated as poor (49.1%) or fair (29.1%), with only 21.7% classified as good. None of the videos were rated as excellent. The included 175 videos were categorized into three source types: general dentists (n = 101), specialist dentists (n = 43), and medical doctors and others (n = 31). Most of the videos addressed topics such as the importance of routine dental check-ups (n = 103), referral to dental care and the importance of preconception oral health (n = 98), and the necessity of proper brushing and flossing techniques (n = 82). The topic mentioned least frequently was tobacco use and gingival health (n = 4). A statistically significant difference in video duration was found across content quality groups (F(2,174) = 26.48, p < 0.001). Videos classified as good quality had significantly longer durations compared to those in the fair and poor quality categories. This suggests that longer videos may provide more comprehensive and informative content. According to the findings of this study, analysis of video source types revealed that videos presented by medical doctors and other individuals had significantly higher view counts compared to those uploaded by general and specialist dentists. This difference was statistically significant based on the ANOVA results (F(2,174) = 4.97, p = 0.01), with the average number of views for the medical doctor/other group calculated as M = 8,556.97, SD = 28,052.24. According to the Scheffé post-hoc analysis, this group differed significantly from both dental professionals and specialist dentists, suggesting that viewers tend to show greater interest in content delivered by narrators with a medical background. This may reflect a societal perception that medical doctors, particularly in areas such as obstetrics and child health, are more extensively trained and thus more trustworthy sources of information. The highest interaction index was observed in videos uploaded by specialist dentists (M = 3.90, SD = 6.13). These videos also had the longest average duration (M = 6.78 minutes, SD = 13.95), which was significantly longer than those uploaded by general dentists (M = 3.38, SD = 4.51) and by medical doctors or others (M = 1.41, SD = 0.87), as confirmed by the ANOVA results (F(2,174) = 4.85, p = 0.01). These results suggest that videos created by specialist dentists stand out in terms of both content duration and viewer engagement. This could be explained by the possibility that higher levels of professional training among specialist dentists lead to greater emphasis on the importance of these topics. Among all viewer interactions, the most frequent types of comments were positive remarks and questions. Notably, no negative comments were encountered in any of the videos. Also, videos with good content quality were found to receive the highest number of positive comments. This may suggest that higher-quality videos stimulate viewer interest and encourage engagement in the form of feedback or questions. Conclusion This study demonstrates that YouTube™ content regarding oral health during pregnancy is significantly limited in scope and predominantly lacks the informational depth required to enhance patient health literacy. The majority of available videos are inadequate as primary health information sources due to insufficient reliability and accuracy. To optimize digital health communication, there is a critical need for evidence-based content authored by general dentists, dental specialists, medical professionals, and academic institutions. Improving the quality and clinical accuracy of online videos is essential to provide expectant mothers with reliable, high-value health guidance. These findings emphasize the necessity for professional oversight and active expert participation in digital health platforms to counteract the prevalence of low-quality information. Declarations Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate: Ethics approval was not required for this study as it was based exclusively on publicly available data. No human participants or identifiable personal data were involved. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no confict of interest with respect to the authorship and/ or publication of this article or financial and non-financial interests. Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this study. Author Contribution NKT and HA designed the study. HA, KA and FSC collected the data. NKT, HA performed the statistical analysis and evaluated the results. NKT and HA wrote, reviewed, and proofread the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Eyüp Yurt for his valuable contribution to the statistical analysis of the study. Availability of data and materials The data that support the fndings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Petersen PE, The World Oral Health Report. 2003: continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century—the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31 Suppl 1:3–23. Leine MA. Effect of pregnancy and dental health. Acta Odontol Scand. 2002;60:257–64. American Dental Association Council on Access, Prevention and Interprofessional Relations. Women's Oral Health Issues [Internet]. Chicago (IL): American Dental Association. 2006. Available from: https://ebusiness.ada.org/Assets/docs/2313.pdf . Accessed Aug 1, 2007. *. Kumar J, Samelson R, editors. Oral health care during pregnancy and early childhood: practice guidelines. New York, NY: New York State Department of Health; 2006. Available from: http://www.health.state.ny.us/publications/0824.pdf [Accessed 1 Aug 2007]. *. Lewis CW, Milgrom P, Fluoride. Pediatr Rev. 2003;24(10):327–36. [Published correction appears in Pediatr Rev. 2003;24(12):429.]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. Oral health in America: a report of the Surgeon General. NIH publication no. 00-4713. Rockville, MD: U.S. Public Health Service, Dept. of Health and Human Services; 2000. Hey-Hadavi JH. Women's oral health issues: sex differences and clinical implications. Womens Health Prim Care. 2002;5(3):189–99. Berkowitz RJ. Acquisition and transmission of mutans streptococci. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2003;31(2):135–8. Allston AA. Improving women's health and perinatal outcomes: the impact of oral diseases [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): Women's and Children's Health Policy Center; 2002. Available from: http://www.jhsph.edu/wchpc/publications/ . Accessed Aug 1, 2007.*. American Academy of Periodontology. Periodontal (gum) diseases [Internet]. Available from: http://www.perio.org/consumer/2a.html . Accessed Aug 1, 2007.*. Gaffield ML, Gilbert BJ, Malvitz DM, Romaguera R. Oral health during pregnancy: an analysis of information collected by the pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;132(7):1009–16. Sills ES, Zegarelli DJ, Hoschander MM, Strider WE. Clinical diagnosis and management of hormonally responsive oral pregnancy tumor (pyogenic granuloma). J Reprod Med. 1996;41(7):467–70. Scheutz F, Baelum V, Matee MI, Mwangosi I. Motherhood and dental disease. Community Dent Health. 2002;19(2):67–72. Clothier B, Stringer M, Jeffcoat MK. Periodontal disease and pregnancy outcomes: exposure, risk and intervention. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21(3):451–66. Boggess KA, Edelstein BL. Oral health in women during preconception and pregnancy: implications for birth outcomes and infant oral health. Matern Child Health J. 2006;10(5 Suppl):S169–74. Vettore MV, Lamarca GA, Leão ATT, Thomaz FB, Sheiham A, Leal MC. Periodontal infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Rev Saude Publica. 2009;43(3):29–36. Michalowicz BS, Hodges JS, DiAngelis AJ, Lupo VR, Novak MJ, Ferguson JE, et al. Treatment of periodontal disease and the risk of preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(18):1885–94. Goepfert AR, Jeffcoat MK, Andrews WW, et al. Periodontal disease and upper genital tract inflammation in early spontaneous preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):777–83. Offenbacher S, Lieff S, Boggess KA, et al. Maternal periodontitis and prematurity. Part I: obstetric outcome of prematurity and growth restriction. Ann Periodontol. 2001;6(1):164–74. March of Dimes. Help reduce costs: the economic costs of prematurity [Internet]. Available from: http://www.marchofdimes.com/prematurity/21198_10734.asp . Accessed Jul 1, 2007.*. American Academy of Family Physicians. Health Effects of Prenatal Radiation Exposure. Am Fam Physician. 2010;82(5):488–93. Jeffcoat MK, Hauth JC, Geurs NC, Reddy MS, Cliver SP, Hodgkins PM, et al. Periodontal disease and preterm birth: results of a pilot intervention study. J Periodontol. 2003;74(8):1214–8. López NJ, Da Silva I, Ipinza J, Gutiérrez J. Periodontal therapy reduces the rate of preterm low birth weight in women with pregnancy-associated gingivitis. J Periodontol. 2005;76(11 Suppl):2144–53. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient–health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1–2):24–8. Sahin SC, Dere KA. Quality of information in masseter Botox videos on YouTube: is it a sufficient guide for potential patients? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;73:313–25. Task Force on Periodontal Treatment of Pregnant Women, American Academy of Periodontology. American Academy of Periodontology statement regarding periodontal management of the pregnant patient. J Periodontol. 2004;75(3):495. Ozturk G, Gumus H. Content analysis of YouTube™ videos related to dental treatments performed under general anesthesia in children. Selcuk Dent J. 2021;8:140–7. Yağcı F. Evaluation of YouTube as a source of information for fixed prosthodontic restorations. J Health Sci. 2021;30:191–9. Cakir P, Eden E. Evaluation of fluoride-related content shared on social media platforms Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube: a cross-sectional study. Turk Klin J Med Sci. 2022;28:61–71. ElKarmi R, Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Scully C. YouTube as a source for parents’ education on early childhood caries. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017;27(6):437–43. Ozbay Y, Cirakoglu NY. YouTube as an information source for instrument separation in root canal treatment. Restor Dent Endod. 2021;46(1):e8. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2021.46.e8 . Nason K, Donnelly A, Duncan HF. YouTube as a patient-information source for root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2016;49(12):1194–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12575 . Topsakal KG, Aksoy M, Akbulut AS. Evaluation of YouTube videos related to orthodontic treatments in children. NEU Dent J. 2021;3(2):108–14. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple study guide and reference. 10th ed. New Delhi: Pearson Education India; 2011. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th ed. London: SAGE; 2018. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 . StatTrek. Scheffe test for multiple comparisons [Internet]. Available from: https://stattrek.com/statistics/anova/post-hoc/scheffe . Accessed Jan 10, 2025. National Collaborative Perinatal Project [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health; 1959–1974. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/collections/ncpp.html . Accessed Jul 1, 2007. Cardakci Bahar S, Ozarslanturk S, Ozcan E. Does YouTube provide adequate information on oral health during pregnancy? Cureus. 2024;16(4):e57887. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.57887 . Cagetti MG, Salerno C, Ionescu AC, La Rocca S, Camoni N, Cirio S, Campus G. Knowledge and attitudes on oral health of women during pregnancy and their children: an online survey. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03732-2 . Soderling E, Isokangas P, Pienihakkinen K, Tenovuo J, Alanen P. Influence of maternal xylitol consumption on mother-child transmission of mutans streptococci: 6-year follow-up. Caries Res. 2001;35(3):173–7. Qu B, Kang B, Chen X, Ao Y, Wang L, Cui W. YouTube as a source of information on preventing the use of valproic acid in women during pregnancy. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):1225. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16036-5 . American Dental Association, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The selection of patients for dental radiographic examinations [Internet]. Revised 2004. Available from: http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/topics_radiography_examinations.pdf . Accessed Aug 1, 2007.*. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis. 2016;22:202–8. Smyth A, Caamano F, Fernandez-Riveiro P. Oral hygiene and YouTube: a cross-sectional study of the effectiveness of YouTube videos as a source of oral health education. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1):e19. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1281 * Some URLs refer to archived or previously available web pages. Access to older online documents may vary over time. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 02 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 01 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 25 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 06 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 27 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 28 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 28 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 26 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8704109","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":613841163,"identity":"379a8f05-d0d2-4849-a44a-e76a632a2780","order_by":0,"name":"Nazan Kocak Topbas","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Mersin University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nazan","middleName":"Kocak","lastName":"Topbas","suffix":""},{"id":613841164,"identity":"a972fab0-4df2-4bc6-85f3-4f6e55cffa29","order_by":1,"name":"Halil Altun","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Mersin University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Halil","middleName":"","lastName":"Altun","suffix":""},{"id":613841165,"identity":"3a3f96cb-55b6-48b9-b59b-be3ad342d379","order_by":2,"name":"Kübra Albayrak","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Mersin University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kübra","middleName":"","lastName":"Albayrak","suffix":""},{"id":613841169,"identity":"0cf11c4f-c538-40ee-8ed5-8d51dcf3dfeb","order_by":3,"name":"Fatıma Sümeyra Çetin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Mersin University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fatıma","middleName":"Sümeyra","lastName":"Çetin","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-26 22:38:05","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8704109/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8704109/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105729173,"identity":"67454259-16e4-4bed-a0a3-4ec65929f2d4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-30 11:13:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":786625,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8704109/v1/3b922ee9-abdd-4dcb-8fb4-39d6c8debb38.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos as a Source of Information on Oral Health During Pregnancy: A Cross-Sectional Content Analysis","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOral health care during pregnancy is often neglected and misunderstood by physicians, dentists, and patients alike. Previous studies have demonstrated that certain prenatal oral diseases may contribute to adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Periodontitis, for instance, has been associated with preterm birth and low birth weight, whereas elevated levels of cariogenic bacteria in mothers can increase the risk of dental caries in their infants [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast, gingivitis and pregnancy tumors are benign oral conditions that warrant monitoring but rarely require invasive intervention [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Comprehensive prenatal care should therefore include routine oral health screening, counseling on proper oral hygiene, and timely referral for dental evaluation when necessary. Moreover, dental procedures such as diagnostic radiography, periodontal therapy, restorations, and extractions are considered safe during pregnancy and are preferably performed during the second trimester [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eApproximately one-quarter of women of reproductive age experience dental caries resulting from the fermentation of dietary carbohydrates by oral bacteria [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Pregnant women are particularly susceptible to dental caries due to increased consumption of sugary foods, elevated oral acidity, and reduced motivation for maintaining oral hygiene [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, children of mothers with high levels of dental caries are more likely to develop caries themselves [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Pregnancy-associated oral tumors, which occur in approximately 5% of all pregnancies, are clinically indistinguishable from pyogenic granulomas. These vascular lesions are typically erythematous, smooth, and lobulated, most commonly affecting the gingiva [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], although the tongue, palate, and buccal mucosa may also be involved. Management is generally conservative unless the lesions bleed or interfere with mastication [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Even in the absence of periodontal disease, teeth may exhibit temporary mobility during pregnancy due to hormonal changes, particularly elevated progesterone and estrogen levels, which influence the periodontium [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. In cases of uncomplicated tooth mobility unrelated to periodontal disease, clinicians should reassure patients that the condition is transient and not indicative of future tooth loss [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeriodontitis is a destructive inflammatory condition of the periodontium that affects approximately 30% of women of childbearing age [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. This process involves bacterial infiltration of the periodontium, where toxins produced by the bacteria elicit a chronic inflammatory response, resulting in the breakdown and destruction of the periodontal tissues and the formation of infected pockets. Consequently, the affected teeth begin to loosen [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. In women with periodontitis who have experienced preterm birth, elevated levels of these inflammatory markers have been found in the amniotic fluid compared to healthy controls [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Another study reported the presence of minimal levels of oral bacteria in the amniotic fluid and placental tissues of women with periodontitis who delivered prematurely [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeriodontitis has been associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes; however, the precise mechanisms underlying these associations remain unclear and continue to be a subject of debate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. In a systematic review by Vettore et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], which examined studies conducted between 1996 and 2006 across twelve countries and three U.S. states, 24 studies reported a positive association between periodontitis and preterm birth, low birth weight, or both. Conversely, the large-scale Obstetrics and Periodontal Therapy (OPT) study conducted in the United States by Michalowicz et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], found that periodontal treatment administered during the second trimester did not significantly reduce the incidence of preterm birth or low birth weight. Despite these conflicting findings, the American Academy of Periodontology recommends that all women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant undergo a comprehensive periodontal examination and receive appropriate treatment as part of prenatal care [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhysicians and dentists can address the challenges of providing oral health care during pregnancy through education, effective communication, and the establishment of ongoing collaborative relationships [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Dental radiography may be performed during pregnancy when clinically indicated for acute diagnostic purposes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]; however, whenever possible, such procedures should be deferred until after the first trimester [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Exposure to low-dose radiation does not significantly increase the risk of teratogenic effects, spontaneous miscarriage, or congenital malformations. Clinical evidence indicates that radiation doses below 0.05 Gy during pregnancy are not associated with any observed non-cancer health effects [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. In general, dental procedures are best scheduled during the second trimester, after organogenesis is complete, although urgent dental care can be safely provided at any stage of gestation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. During the third trimester, additional considerations such as positional discomfort and compression of the inferior vena cava may arise; placing the patient in a left lateral position, encouraging frequent position changes, and keeping appointments brief can help minimize these complications [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformation about oral and dental health during pregnancy can be obtained from various sources, including physicians, dentists, and healthcare institutions. However, in the digital age, many patients increasingly rely on the internet to seek preliminary information about health conditions and available treatment options [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eToday, the internet provides rapid and convenient access to information on a wide range of health-related topics. Among the most frequently used online platforms for this purpose are YouTube\u0026trade; (Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, California, USA) and Google (Mountain View, California, USA), where patients commonly seek information about pregnancy and oral health. YouTube\u0026trade;, launched in 2005, is the world\u0026rsquo;s second most visited website and the largest video-sharing platform, offering unrestricted and free access to its content. Approximately 100\u0026nbsp;million videos are viewed daily, and tens of thousands of new videos are uploaded by users each day [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Videos concerning dental health are often uploaded by dental clinics, dentists, physicians, professional organizations, and even patients themselves [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. However, because YouTube\u0026trade; lacks a formal content verification or peer-review mechanism, it may contain misleading or inaccurate information alongside reliable content [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite these limitations, YouTube\u0026trade; has become an increasingly influential source of health information. Several studies evaluating health-related video content on YouTube\u0026trade; have highlighted concerns regarding the accuracy, reliability, and overall quality of the information provided, with most videos deemed inadequate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe aim of this study is to evaluate the informational content, quality, and reliability of videos related to oral and dental health during pregnancy available on the YouTube\u0026trade; video-sharing platform. The null hypothesis of this study is that the content and quality of YouTube\u0026trade; videos related to oral and dental health during pregnancy are sufficient to adequately inform patients.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the keyword \u0026ldquo;oral and dental health during pregnancy\u0026rdquo; was selected by the observers to be entered into the YouTube\u0026trade; (Google LLC, USA) video-sharing platform. Prior to conducting the search, all browser history, cache, and cookies were cleared to prevent personalized recommendations and ensure unbiased search results. No specific filters (such as upload date, view count, or duration) were applied during the search process. A total of 195 video links retrieved from the search results between [insert start date (August 1, 2024)] and [insert end date (September 1, 2024)] were recorded for subsequent analysis. Since the study utilized only publicly available data, ethical approval was not required.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eVideo Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo determine which videos would be included in the study, all videos retrieved from the YouTube\u0026trade; platform were watched in their entirety. The inclusion and exclusion criteria defined by Elkarmi et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], were adopted as the basis for video selection. Videos were eligible if they addressed oral and dental health during pregnancy, did not contain advertisements, had audible Turkish narration, were open to public comments, were not part of a televised program, and had no commercial intent. Accordingly, a total of 175 eligible videos were independently reviewed and evaluated by two dental research assistants specializing in Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (A.K. and \u0026Ccedil;.F.S.).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach video was evaluated according to nine specific content categories related to oral and dental health during pregnancy: (1) routine dental check-ups during pregnancy; (2) the impact of oral hygiene on fetal health; (3) referral of pregnant women to dentists; (4) the association between periodontal health and preterm birth or low birth weight; (5) correction of misinformation; (6) tobacco use and gingival health; (7) infant and child health; (8) proper brushing and flossing techniques; and (9) nutrition during pregnancy. Each content parameter was assigned a score of 1 if it was present in the video and 0 if it was absent. Furthermore, the overall content quality of each video was categorized into four levels: \u003cem\u003epoor\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003efair\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003egood\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eexcellent\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Based on the total content score, videos were classified as follows: 0\u0026ndash;2 points indicated \u003cem\u003epoor\u003c/em\u003e quality, 3\u0026ndash;4 points \u003cem\u003efair\u003c/em\u003e quality, 5\u0026ndash;7 points \u003cem\u003egood\u003c/em\u003e quality, and 8\u0026ndash;9 points \u003cem\u003eexcellent\u003c/em\u003e quality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn accordance with previous studies, the interaction index and view rate were calculated using the following formulas [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eInteraction Index (%)\u003c/b\u003e = ((Number of Likes \u0026ndash; Number of Dislikes) / Number of Views) \u0026times; 100\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eView Rate (%)\u003c/b\u003e = (Number of Views / Time Since Upload) \u0026times; 100. Each video included in the study was scored based on the quality of the information it presented [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVideos were also categorized by uploader type, video source, and intended purpose, and their visual quality was also assessed. Each video uploader was categorized as a general dentist, specialist dentist (pedodontist, endodontist, prosthodontics, restorative dentistry, orthodontics, oral and maxillofacial surgery, periodontology), medical doctor (general practitioner, obstetrics and gynecology, perinatology), or other (midwife specialist).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical analyses were performed using the SPSS version 25.0 statistical software package (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The assumption of normality was tested to determine the suitability of applying parametric statistical methods. Normality is a fundamental prerequisite that requires the data distribution to approximate a normal curve for parametric analyses to be valid.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, skewness and kurtosis coefficients were calculated to evaluate the symmetry and peakedness of the data distribution, respectively. Skewness indicates whether the distribution is skewed to the left or right, whereas kurtosis reflects the degree to which the distribution is more peaked or flatter than a normal distribution. As the values of these coefficients approach 0, the data distribution is considered to approximate normality. According to George and Mallery [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], values within the range of \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2 are generally accepted as indicative of a normal distribution. In the present study, the calculated skewness and kurtosis values were within this acceptable range, confirming that the assumption of normality was satisfied.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the obtained results, the dataset was found to meet the assumption of normal distribution; therefore, the use of parametric statistical methods specifically one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was deemed appropriate for further analyses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo evaluate whether video characteristics differed according to content score categories and video sources, one-way ANOVA was performed in accordance with the study objectives. When statistically significant differences were identified through ANOVA, the Scheff\u0026eacute; post-hoc test was applied to determine the specific groups responsible for the observed differences. The Scheff\u0026eacute; test is recognized as a conservative method that effectively controls the Type I error rate in multiple comparisons, particularly when group sizes are unequal. Compared with other post-hoc procedures, it provides more robust results and minimizes the likelihood of false-positive findings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. A \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant throughout the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, inter-rater reliability was analyzed to ensure the consistency of scoring in the content and quality evaluations of the videos. In this context, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa coefficient was calculated for the content score categories. Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa is a statistical measure that quantifies the level of agreement between evaluators while accounting for agreement that may occur by chance. A Kappa value of 1.00 indicates perfect agreement, whereas values above 0.80 are generally interpreted as reflecting strong agreement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn line with the objectives of the study, a total of 195 videos retrieved from the YouTube\u0026trade; search engine were examined. Of these, 175 videos met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Descriptive data for these 175 videos including the number of views, video duration (minutes), time since upload (days), number of likes, number of comments, interaction index, and viewing rate are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistical data (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;175)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMin\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMax\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of views\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e152\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e159.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2400.25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;12340.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVideo duration (min)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.87\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElapsed time (days)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e143.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1682.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1908.78\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1127.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLikes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e771.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.54\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;61.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Comments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e128.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.73\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInteraction index\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.20\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eViewing rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,919\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e124.85\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;500.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD: standard deviation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe number of views ranged from 3 to 152,000, with a mean of 2,400.25 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12,340.92). Video duration ranged from 0.13 to 54.10 minutes, with a mean of 3.87 minutes (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.88). The time since upload varied between 143 and 5,110 days, with a mean of 1,908.78 days (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,127.90).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe number of likes ranged from 0 to 771, with a mean of 14.54 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;61.52). The number of comments ranged from 0 to 128, with a mean of 1.73 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.52). |\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interaction index, which reflects user engagement with the videos, ranged from 0.00 to 22.22, with a mean of 2.20 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.92). Finally, the view rate an indicator of how frequently videos are viewed relative to their time online ranged from 0.25 to 5,919.00, with a mean of 124.85 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;500.58).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the inter-rater reliability analysis for the content score categories using Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa (K) statistic. In the present study, Kappa values across all content categories ranged from 0.96 to 1.00, demonstrating a high level of consistency between evaluators. The Kappa value for overall video quality classification was calculated as 0.982. Perfect agreement (\u003cem\u003eκ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.00) was observed in the categories of \u003cem\u003ereferral to dental care\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eperiodontal health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ecorrection of misinformation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003etobacco use and gingival health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003einfant and child health\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003enutrition during pregnancy\u003c/em\u003e. The lowest agreement was observed in the category addressing the \u003cem\u003eimpact of oral hygiene on fetal health\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eκ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.96), which still indicates an almost perfect level of agreement. All results were statistically significant (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), confirming the reliability of the scoring process and supporting both the validity of the evaluation method and the robustness of the dataset used for further analyses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-researcher agreement for content score categories assessed using Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa coefficient\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent Score Categories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKappa (κ)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoutine dental checkups\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOral hygiene \u0026amp; fetal health\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferring pregnant women to dentist\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeriodontal health \u0026amp; miscarriage/LBW\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrecting false information\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTobacco use \u0026amp; periodontal health\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfant and child health\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrushing and flossing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNutrition during pregnancy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eκ: Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa coefficient.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents the inter-rater reliability analysis for video quality category scores using Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa statistic. The table compares the ratings assigned by two independent evaluators, classifying video quality as \u003cem\u003ePoor\u003c/em\u003e (1), \u003cem\u003eFair\u003c/em\u003e (2), \u003cem\u003eGood\u003c/em\u003e (3), or \u003cem\u003eExcellent\u003c/em\u003e (4). The results demonstrated a high level of agreement between evaluators, with a Kappa value of 0.982 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), indicating an almost perfect level of reliability. The majority of videos were rated as \u003cem\u003epoor\u003c/em\u003e (49.1%) or \u003cem\u003efair\u003c/em\u003e (29.1%), while 21.7% were categorized as \u003cem\u003egood\u003c/em\u003e; none were rated as \u003cem\u003eexcellent\u003c/em\u003e. These findings confirm the strong consistency between evaluators in assessing video quality and support the reliability and validity of the classification process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-researcher agreement on video quality category scores\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond Researcher\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary Researcher\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85 (48.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (0.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e86 (49.1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50 (28.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (0.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51 (29.1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38 (21.7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38 (21.7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85 (48.6%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51 (29.1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39 (22.3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e175 (100%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eNotes: Values are presented as n (%).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eκ: Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa coefficient κ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.982, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 (Excellent agreement between researchers).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVideo quality categories: 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Poor, 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Fair, 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Good, 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Excellent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents a comparison of various video characteristics across three content quality categories (\u003cem\u003epoor\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003efair\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003egood\u003c/em\u003e). To identify significant differences between groups, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. The analysis revealed a significant difference in video duration among the content quality groups (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Videos classified as \u003cem\u003egood\u003c/em\u003e quality had a significantly longer mean duration (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.98 min, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.47) compared to those of \u003cem\u003efair\u003c/em\u003e (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.91 min, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.81) and \u003cem\u003epoor\u003c/em\u003e (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.28 min, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.23) quality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison of video features according to content quality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeatures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;86)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedium(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;51)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGood (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;38)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF(2,174)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eViews (Mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3056\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;17148\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2316\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4831\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1031\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2487\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuration (min)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.28\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.23\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.91\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.81\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.98\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;14.47\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElapsed time (d)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1940\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1257\u003csup\u003ea,b\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2147\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;967\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1519\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;922\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLikes (Mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.62\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;83.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.65\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;33.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.87\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;15.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComments (Mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.07\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;14.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.16\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.74\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInteraction Index\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.04\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.83\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eViewing Rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e135.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;656.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e158.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;351.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;119.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eNotes: Different superscript letters (ᵃ,ᵇ) indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to the Scheff\u0026eacute; post hoc test (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eOne-way ANOVA test, (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) is considered significant. SD: Standard deviation\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe time elapsed since upload also differed significantly among the groups (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.54, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03), with \u003cem\u003efair\u003c/em\u003e-quality videos having been online longer than \u003cem\u003egood\u003c/em\u003e-quality videos. Other variables including the number of views, likes, comments, and the interaction index did not show statistically significant differences across content quality categories (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Scheff\u0026eacute; post-hoc test, selected for its robustness in multiple comparisons with unequal group sizes, was used to determine the specific sources of variation. While some significant differences were identified among content quality groups, pairs indicated by the same letter were not statistically different from each other (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, these findings indicate that video duration and the time since upload are key factors associated with content quality, and the Scheff\u0026eacute; test effectively clarified group-level differences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e presents a comparison of video characteristics based on the type of source, with videos categorized into three groups: general dentists (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;101), specialist dentists (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43), and medical doctors/other sources (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31). The table provides the mean (M), standard deviation (SD), median, and range (minimum\u0026ndash;maximum) for each variable, along with the results of the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison of video features according to video source type\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeatures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDentist (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;101)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecialist dentist (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedical doctor \u0026amp; others (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF (2,174)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eViews (Mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e831\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3100\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1648\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3390\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8557\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28052\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuration (min)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.38\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.51\u003csup\u003ea,b\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.78\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;13.95\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.41\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.87\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElapsed time (d)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2054\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1150\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1469\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;901\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2047\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1212\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLikes (Mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.13\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;18.83\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.37\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.29\u003csup\u003ea,b\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38.94\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;137.30\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComments (Mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.61\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.25\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.28\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.86\u003csup\u003ea,b\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.00\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;23.46\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInteraction Index\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.96\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.94\u003csup\u003ea,b\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.90\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.13\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.63\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.84\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eViewing Rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;134.4\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e137.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;337.8\u003csup\u003ea,b\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e378.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1069.3\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNotes\u003c/b\u003e: Different superscript letters (\u003csup\u003ea,b\u003c/sup\u003e) indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to the Scheff\u0026eacute; post-hoc test (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne-way ANOVA test, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 is considered significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD: Standard deviation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant differences were observed in video duration (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) and time since upload (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.54, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03) across the content quality groups. In addition, comparisons based on video source revealed statistically significant differences for the following variables: number of views (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.97, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01), video duration (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.85, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01), time since upload (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.51, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01), number of likes (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04), number of comments (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04), interaction index (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01), and view rate (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings indicate that multiple video characteristics differ significantly according to both content quality and source, emphasizing the influence of video origin on the quality, visibility, and engagement metrics of YouTube\u0026trade; videos related to oral and dental health during pregnancy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA statistically significant difference in the number of views was observed among the video source groups (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.97, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01). According to the Scheff\u0026eacute; post-hoc analysis, videos uploaded by medical doctors and other sources had a significantly higher mean number of views (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8,556.97, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28,052.24) compared to those uploaded by general dentists (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;830.88, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3,100.43) and specialist dentists (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,647.88, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3,389.88) (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). This finding indicates that videos from medical professionals and other sources reached a broader audience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant differences were also observed among the groups in terms of video duration (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.85, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01). Scheff\u0026eacute; post-hoc results showed that videos uploaded by specialist dentists had a significantly longer mean duration (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.78 min, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.95) compared to those from general dentists (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.38 min) and medical doctors or other sources (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.41 min) (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). This suggests that specialist dentists tend to produce more detailed and comprehensive video content.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA statistically significant difference was also found among the groups regarding the time elapsed since upload (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.51, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01); videos uploaded by specialist dentists (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,469.23 days, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;901.23) had been online for a shorter period compared with the other two groups. Furthermore, significant differences were observed for the number of likes, total comments, (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), with videos uploaded by medical doctors and other sources generally exhibiting higher engagement rates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, a significant difference was found among the groups in terms of the interaction index (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01), with the highest interaction index observed in videos uploaded by specialist dentists. Similarly, a significant difference in view rate was detected (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), with videos from medical doctors and other sources exhibiting the highest view rates. According to the Scheff\u0026eacute; post-hoc test results, groups sharing the same superscript letter (e.g., \u0026ldquo;a\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;b\u0026rdquo;) in the table do not differ significantly from one another. Different superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups, thereby enhancing the clarity and interpretability of results in multiple group comparisons (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe primary aim of this study was to emphasize the importance of oral and dental health during pregnancy and to evaluate the quality of related content available on YouTube\u0026trade;. These findings are particularly significant, as maternal oral health is closely associated with both maternal and fetal well-being. YouTube\u0026trade; is among the most widely used online platforms for accessing health-related information [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, ensuring that the health information disseminated through such digital media is accurate, evidence-based, and reliable is of critical importance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring pregnancy, the demand for information concerning oral health tends to increase, leading many individuals to seek easily accessible online sources. Previous studies have examined the reliability and quality of YouTube\u0026trade; videos across a wide range of medical and dental topics, revealing variable results regarding their accuracy and educational value [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. In this study, YouTube\u0026trade; videos related to \u0026ldquo;oral and dental health during pregnancy\u0026rdquo; were reviewed and evaluated by two independent dental professionals using a structured content scoring system. Based on the findings, the null hypothesis stating that \u0026ldquo;the content and quality of YouTube\u0026trade; videos related to oral and dental health during pregnancy are sufficient to inform patients\u0026rdquo; was rejected. The overall content quality and reliability of the analyzed videos were found to be inadequate for providing accurate and comprehensive patient education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study was designed to assess the quality of information presented in YouTube\u0026trade; videos addressing oral and dental health during pregnancy. Videos were analyzed across nine thematic categories encompassing information delivery, user engagement metrics, and content reliability. Content scoring was conducted independently by two reviewers, yielding a high level of inter-rater reliability, with Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa values ranging from 0.96 to 1.00. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were observed between content quality groups in terms of video duration, time since upload, and interaction parameters.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study by \u0026Ccedil;ardak\u0026ccedil;ı Bahar et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e] presents a cross-sectional analysis examining the accuracy and reliability of YouTube videos related to pregnancy using standardized tools such as the Global Quality Scale (GQS), DISCERN, and JAMA criteria. This study primarily focused on the scientific validity and clarity of the videos rather than the overall quality of information, and evaluations were performed using structured assessment measures. A common feature between their study and the presented study is the shared methodological approach toward evaluating online health content. However, the evaluation criteria and levels of analytical focus differ. While the presented study emphasizes the breadth and diversity of content categories, the study by \u0026Ccedil;ardak\u0026ccedil;ı Bahar et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e] highlights scientific accuracy through structured quality indices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, the study conducted in Italy by Cagetti et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e] reported that mothers with higher education levels experienced knowledge gaps regarding oral and dental health during pregnancy and that the vast majority did not receive professional counseling. This finding highlights not only the insufficiency of digital content but also the limited provision of direct information from healthcare professionals. While our study identified that most digital content related to pregnancy and oral health is of low quality, the study by Cagetti et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e], through a patient-centered approach, that the healthcare system itself is not adequately fulfilling its educational role. Both studies underscore the critical importance of healthcare professionals in raising awareness about oral health during pregnancy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn a study conducted by Szmuda et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e] evaluating YouTube videos related to COVID-19 and pregnancy, it was reported that the majority of the content was produced by non-professional sources and exhibited low levels of informational reliability. Using objective assessment tools such as DISCERN and JAMA, the analysis revealed that although videos based on personal experiences received high view counts, they were generally poor in terms of informational quality. Although a general structured scale was not used in the data analysis of our study, these findings largely overlap with the results of our study. These findings align closely with the results of our study. Both studies demonstrate that a substantial portion of health-related content presented on digital platforms lacks scientific accuracy and credibility. Furthermore, the relatively low number of professional content creators and the limited engagement with their content highlight the risk of digital inequality in health communication. In this context, the active participation of healthcare professionals on digital platforms and the promotion of high-quality content creation are considered strategic necessities for safeguarding public health.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the study conducted by Qu et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e], the content quality of YouTube\u0026trade; videos addressing the prevention of valproic acid use during pregnancy was evaluated, and only 6.5% of the videos were classified as \u0026ldquo;very useful.\u0026rdquo; The study emphasized that most videos lacked essential information regarding diagnosis and treatment and provided only superficial content. These findings are consistent with the results of our content analysis of videos focused on oral and dental health during pregnancy. Both studies demonstrate that health-related information disseminated via digital platforms is largely inadequate and lacks scientific rigor. Additionally, it is noteworthy that professional sources are not only fewer in number but also associated with higher content quality. This highlights the necessity for healthcare professionals to have a more visible presence on digital platforms and for the production of high-quality content to be actively supported. In order to ensure public access to accurate health information and to enhance digital health literacy, initiatives aimed at strengthening the presence and engagement of healthcare professionals in digital media are considered crucial for public health. Addressing the lack of information in this area is of critical importance, particularly for ensuring appropriate patient guidance and enhancing health literacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs highlighted in guidelines published by the American Dental Association (ADA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, clinical decisions such as those involving radiographic examinations should be based on evidence-based information [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the findings of this study indicate that the majority of health-related content on digital platforms such as YouTube\u0026trade; lacks scientific coherence and clarity. Indeed, previous studies evaluating similar digital health content have also emphasized the superficial nature of many videos. For example, in topics such as oral cancer, risk factors are often inadequately explained, and informational depth is lacking [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, in a study on oral hygiene education videos on YouTube\u0026trade;, Smyth et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] reported that none of the included videos were engaging, not all topics were covered, and the authors expressed concerns about the messages presented in some of the content.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of the present study revealed that individuals using YouTube\u0026trade; as a source of information regarding oral and dental health during pregnancy are not able to access sufficient and reliable information. In this study, the majority of the videos were rated as poor (49.1%) or fair (29.1%), with only 21.7% classified as good. None of the videos were rated as excellent. The included 175 videos were categorized into three source types: general dentists (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;101), specialist dentists (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43), and medical doctors and others (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31). Most of the videos addressed topics such as the importance of routine dental check-ups (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;103), referral to dental care and the importance of preconception oral health (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;98), and the necessity of proper brushing and flossing techniques (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;82). The topic mentioned least frequently was tobacco use and gingival health (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA statistically significant difference in video duration was found across content quality groups (F(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.48, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Videos classified as good quality had significantly longer durations compared to those in the fair and poor quality categories. This suggests that longer videos may provide more comprehensive and informative content.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the findings of this study, analysis of video source types revealed that videos presented by medical doctors and other individuals had significantly higher view counts compared to those uploaded by general and specialist dentists. This difference was statistically significant based on the ANOVA results (F(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.97, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01), with the average number of views for the medical doctor/other group calculated as M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8,556.97, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28,052.24. According to the Scheff\u0026eacute; post-hoc analysis, this group differed significantly from both dental professionals and specialist dentists, suggesting that viewers tend to show greater interest in content delivered by narrators with a medical background. This may reflect a societal perception that medical doctors, particularly in areas such as obstetrics and child health, are more extensively trained and thus more trustworthy sources of information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe highest interaction index was observed in videos uploaded by specialist dentists (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.90, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.13). These videos also had the longest average duration (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.78 minutes, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.95), which was significantly longer than those uploaded by general dentists (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.38, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.51) and by medical doctors or others (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.41, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.87), as confirmed by the ANOVA results (F(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.85, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01). These results suggest that videos created by specialist dentists stand out in terms of both content duration and viewer engagement. This could be explained by the possibility that higher levels of professional training among specialist dentists lead to greater emphasis on the importance of these topics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong all viewer interactions, the most frequent types of comments were positive remarks and questions. Notably, no negative comments were encountered in any of the videos. Also, videos with good content quality were found to receive the highest number of positive comments. This may suggest that higher-quality videos stimulate viewer interest and encourage engagement in the form of feedback or questions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrates that YouTube\u0026trade; content regarding oral health during pregnancy is significantly limited in scope and predominantly lacks the informational depth required to enhance patient health literacy. The majority of available videos are inadequate as primary health information sources due to insufficient reliability and accuracy. To optimize digital health communication, there is a critical need for evidence-based content authored by general dentists, dental specialists, medical professionals, and academic institutions. Improving the quality and clinical accuracy of online videos is essential to provide expectant mothers with reliable, high-value health guidance. These findings emphasize the necessity for professional oversight and active expert participation in digital health platforms to counteract the prevalence of low-quality information.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval and Consent to Participate:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthics approval was not required for this study as it was based exclusively on publicly available data. No human participants or identifiable personal data were involved.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no confict of interest with respect to the authorship and/ or publication of this article or financial and non-financial interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors received no specific funding for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNKT and HA designed the study. HA, KA and FSC collected the data. NKT, HA performed the statistical analysis and evaluated the results. NKT and HA wrote, reviewed, and proofread the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ey\u0026uuml;p Yurt for his valuable contribution to the statistical analysis of the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data that support the fndings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetersen PE, The World Oral Health Report. 2003: continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century\u0026mdash;the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31 Suppl 1:3\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeine MA. Effect of pregnancy and dental health. Acta Odontol Scand. 2002;60:257\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmerican Dental Association Council on Access, Prevention and Interprofessional Relations. Women's Oral Health Issues [Internet]. Chicago (IL): American Dental Association. 2006. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ebusiness.ada.org/Assets/docs/2313.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ebusiness.ada.org/Assets/docs/2313.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed Aug 1, 2007. *.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKumar J, Samelson R, editors. Oral health care during pregnancy and early childhood: practice guidelines. New York, NY: New York State Department of Health; 2006. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.health.state.ny.us/publications/0824.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.health.state.ny.us/publications/0824.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e [Accessed 1 Aug 2007]. *.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLewis CW, Milgrom P, Fluoride. Pediatr Rev. 2003;24(10):327\u0026ndash;36. [Published correction appears in Pediatr Rev. 2003;24(12):429.].\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. Oral health in America: a report of the Surgeon General. NIH publication no. 00-4713. Rockville, MD: U.S. Public Health Service, Dept. of Health and Human Services; 2000.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHey-Hadavi JH. Women's oral health issues: sex differences and clinical implications. Womens Health Prim Care. 2002;5(3):189\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerkowitz RJ. Acquisition and transmission of mutans streptococci. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2003;31(2):135\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAllston AA. Improving women's health and perinatal outcomes: the impact of oral diseases [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): Women's and Children's Health Policy Center; 2002. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.jhsph.edu/wchpc/publications/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.jhsph.edu/wchpc/publications/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed Aug 1, 2007.*.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmerican Academy of Periodontology. Periodontal (gum) diseases [Internet]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.perio.org/consumer/2a.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.perio.org/consumer/2a.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed Aug 1, 2007.*.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGaffield ML, Gilbert BJ, Malvitz DM, Romaguera R. Oral health during pregnancy: an analysis of information collected by the pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;132(7):1009\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSills ES, Zegarelli DJ, Hoschander MM, Strider WE. Clinical diagnosis and management of hormonally responsive oral pregnancy tumor (pyogenic granuloma). J Reprod Med. 1996;41(7):467\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScheutz F, Baelum V, Matee MI, Mwangosi I. Motherhood and dental disease. Community Dent Health. 2002;19(2):67\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClothier B, Stringer M, Jeffcoat MK. Periodontal disease and pregnancy outcomes: exposure, risk and intervention. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21(3):451\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoggess KA, Edelstein BL. Oral health in women during preconception and pregnancy: implications for birth outcomes and infant oral health. Matern Child Health J. 2006;10(5 Suppl):S169\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVettore MV, Lamarca GA, Le\u0026atilde;o ATT, Thomaz FB, Sheiham A, Leal MC. Periodontal infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Rev Saude Publica. 2009;43(3):29\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMichalowicz BS, Hodges JS, DiAngelis AJ, Lupo VR, Novak MJ, Ferguson JE, et al. Treatment of periodontal disease and the risk of preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(18):1885\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoepfert AR, Jeffcoat MK, Andrews WW, et al. Periodontal disease and upper genital tract inflammation in early spontaneous preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):777\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOffenbacher S, Lieff S, Boggess KA, et al. Maternal periodontitis and prematurity. Part I: obstetric outcome of prematurity and growth restriction. Ann Periodontol. 2001;6(1):164\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarch of Dimes. Help reduce costs: the economic costs of prematurity [Internet]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.marchofdimes.com/prematurity/21198_10734.asp\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.marchofdimes.com/prematurity/21198_10734.asp\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed Jul 1, 2007.*.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmerican Academy of Family Physicians. Health Effects of Prenatal Radiation Exposure. Am Fam Physician. 2010;82(5):488\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJeffcoat MK, Hauth JC, Geurs NC, Reddy MS, Cliver SP, Hodgkins PM, et al. Periodontal disease and preterm birth: results of a pilot intervention study. J Periodontol. 2003;74(8):1214\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eL\u0026oacute;pez NJ, Da Silva I, Ipinza J, Guti\u0026eacute;rrez J. Periodontal therapy reduces the rate of preterm low birth weight in women with pregnancy-associated gingivitis. J Periodontol. 2005;76(11 Suppl):2144\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient\u0026ndash;health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1\u0026ndash;2):24\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSahin SC, Dere KA. Quality of information in masseter Botox videos on YouTube: is it a sufficient guide for potential patients? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;73:313\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTask Force on Periodontal Treatment of Pregnant Women, American Academy of Periodontology. American Academy of Periodontology statement regarding periodontal management of the pregnant patient. J Periodontol. 2004;75(3):495.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOzturk G, Gumus H. Content analysis of YouTube\u0026trade; videos related to dental treatments performed under general anesthesia in children. Selcuk Dent J. 2021;8:140\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYağcı F. Evaluation of YouTube as a source of information for fixed prosthodontic restorations. J Health Sci. 2021;30:191\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCakir P, Eden E. Evaluation of fluoride-related content shared on social media platforms Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube: a cross-sectional study. Turk Klin J Med Sci. 2022;28:61\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElKarmi R, Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Scully C. YouTube as a source for parents\u0026rsquo; education on early childhood caries. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017;27(6):437\u0026ndash;43.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOzbay Y, Cirakoglu NY. YouTube as an information source for instrument separation in root canal treatment. Restor Dent Endod. 2021;46(1):e8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2021.46.e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5395/rde.2021.46.e8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNason K, Donnelly A, Duncan HF. YouTube as a patient-information source for root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2016;49(12):1194\u0026ndash;200. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12575\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/iej.12575\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTopsakal KG, Aksoy M, Akbulut AS. Evaluation of YouTube videos related to orthodontic treatments in children. NEU Dent J. 2021;3(2):108\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeorge D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple study guide and reference. 10th ed. New Delhi: Pearson Education India; 2011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eField A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th ed. London: SAGE; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):37\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/001316446002000104\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStatTrek. Scheffe test for multiple comparisons [Internet]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://stattrek.com/statistics/anova/post-hoc/scheffe\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://stattrek.com/statistics/anova/post-hoc/scheffe\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed Jan 10, 2025.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Collaborative Perinatal Project [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health; 1959\u0026ndash;1974. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/collections/ncpp.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/collections/ncpp.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed Jul 1, 2007.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCardakci Bahar S, Ozarslanturk S, Ozcan E. Does YouTube provide adequate information on oral health during pregnancy? Cureus. 2024;16(4):e57887. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.57887\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7759/cureus.57887\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCagetti MG, Salerno C, Ionescu AC, La Rocca S, Camoni N, Cirio S, Campus G. Knowledge and attitudes on oral health of women during pregnancy and their children: an online survey. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03732-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12903-023-03732-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSoderling E, Isokangas P, Pienihakkinen K, Tenovuo J, Alanen P. Influence of maternal xylitol consumption on mother-child transmission of mutans streptococci: 6-year follow-up. Caries Res. 2001;35(3):173\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQu B, Kang B, Chen X, Ao Y, Wang L, Cui W. YouTube as a source of information on preventing the use of valproic acid in women during pregnancy. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):1225. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16036-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12889-023-16036-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmerican Dental Association, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The selection of patients for dental radiographic examinations [Internet]. Revised 2004. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/topics_radiography_examinations.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/topics_radiography_examinations.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed Aug 1, 2007.*.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis. 2016;22:202\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmyth A, Caamano F, Fernandez-Riveiro P. Oral hygiene and YouTube: a cross-sectional study of the effectiveness of YouTube videos as a source of oral health education. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1):e19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1281\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2196/jmir.1281\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e* Some URLs refer to archived or previously available web pages. Access to older online documents may vary over time.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-oral-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ohea","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Oral Health](http://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ohea/default.aspx","title":"BMC Oral Health","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Oral Health, Pregnancy, Social Media, YouTube, Health Literacy","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8704109/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8704109/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to evaluate the content quality, reliability, and informational value of YouTube videos regarding oral and dental health during pregnancy, while examining the correlation between quality, source type, and user engagement metrics (e.g., number of views, likes, and comments).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA systematic search was conducted on YouTube using the keywords \u0026ldquo;oral and dental health during pregnancy.\u0026rdquo; Two independent reviewers from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology assessed 195 videos. Data were categorized by content quality (poor, moderate, good, excellent) and source type (dentist, specialist, physician/other). Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and Scheff\u0026eacute; post-hoc tests. Inter-rater reliability was determined via Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa coefficient.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf the 175 videos meeting the inclusion criteria, 49.1% were classified as poor, 29.1% as moderate, and 21.7% as good; no videos reached the \"excellent\" threshold. Content quality was significantly associated with video duration (F(2,174)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.48, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), indicating that higher-quality videos were typically longer. Significant differences were observed in engagement metrics including view count, likes, comments, and interaction index based on the video source (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Notably, videos uploaded by physicians and non-dental sources demonstrated higher engagement despite varying quality levels. Inter-rater reliability was excellent across all categories (Kappa\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.96\u0026ndash;1.00, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe majority of YouTube content concerning oral health during pregnancy is of poor or moderate quality. While engagement is high, the lack of \"excellent\" evidence-based information poses a risk to public health. There is a critical need for dental professionals and specialists to produce high-quality, accurate digital content to improve digital health literacy and ensure the dissemination of evidence-based information for expectant mothers.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos as a Source of Information on Oral Health During Pregnancy: A Cross-Sectional Content Analysis","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-30 10:35:17","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8704109/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-02T06:59:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-02T02:42:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-25T11:46:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"320283555526864383128994245551621049132","date":"2026-04-11T06:07:40+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-06T17:55:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"334457680085964751625504598181399179088","date":"2026-04-06T17:45:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"329693568637051551539740467325813105376","date":"2026-04-05T08:17:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-27T12:53:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-28T05:08:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-28T05:05:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Oral Health","date":"2026-01-26T22:20:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-oral-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ohea","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Oral Health](http://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ohea/default.aspx","title":"BMC Oral Health","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6bdabc0d-64a7-4e8e-bb51-b2ea2d7735a3","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 30th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-02T06:59:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-02T02:42:14+00:00","index":44,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T09:53:31+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-30 10:35:17","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8704109","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8704109","identity":"rs-8704109","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}