ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluating YouTube content on dental lasers: a clinical application-based quality and reliability study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDental laser technology is widely used across multiple clinical fields of dentistry. YouTube is a commonly used information source for both patients and healthcare professionals and may shape health-related perceptions and information-seeking behavior. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, technical quality, and ethical standards of YouTube videos related to dental laser applications.
methodsA structured YouTube search was conducted using the keywords "dental laser," "laser in dentistry," and "laser dentistry." Of 360 initially screened videos, 121 met the eligibility criteria. Video quality and reliability were evaluated using CQS, mDISCERN, JAMA, VIQI, GQS, and HONcode. Data normality was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test; group comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni-corrected Mann-Whitney U tests, categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test, correlations with Spearman's rho, and intra- and inter-rater reliability with intraclass correlation coefficients.
resultsOf the evaluated videos, 33 (27.3%) were classified as low quality (0-3 points), 83 (68.6%) as moderate quality (4-6 points), and 5 (4.1%) as high quality (7-9 points). The CQS showed a positive correlation with the mDISCERN (ρ = 0.421; p < 0.001), VIQI (ρ = 0.684; p < 0.001), and GQS (ρ = 0.722; p < 0.001) scores.
conclusionThe quality and reliability of YouTube videos related to dental laser applications are predominantly low to moderate. There is a clear need for more accurate, comprehensive, and professionally produced videos to support patient education and informed online information seeking, while recognizing that such videos cannot replace evidence-based clinical training, professional guidelines, or manufacturer-specific safety protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.