Objective: To systematically assess the informational value, quality, intention, source and bias of web 2.0 footage whose aim is peer-to-peer education about oral implantology.
Methods: YouTube (http://www.youtube.com) was scanned on 15 October 2010 for oral implantology-related videos using an adequately pre-defined search query. Search results were filtered with the system-generated category 'education' and the additional criterion 'most viewed'. Only those videos with at least 1000 views were included (total 124, of which 27 were excluded because they were not related to implantology). Filtered videos were discussed and rated with particular regard to the educational needs of potential groups of addressees [(i) undergraduates and laymen, (ii) dentists without or currently undergoing a specialisation in oral implantology and (iii) dentists who have completed a specialisation in the field of oral implantology] by a jury consisting of (i) an accredited post-graduate university instructor with 22 years of professional teaching experience in the field of implantology, (ii) a university lecturer in dentistry/orthodontics with 10 years teaching experience and (iii) a university haematologist/oncologist. They were required to fill out a questionnaire for each video. The data were statistically analysed using non-parametric ANOVA (α = 5%) and a sign test (α = 0.05/3 = 0.017).
Results: The YouTube scan produced 1710 results in the category 'EDU'. The analysis revealed that there is a wide range of instructional footage on this topic, but with highly variable range in quality and informational value. Footage intention was to large proportions (47.4%) a mixture of education and advertisement. Its usefulness differed significantly for the three groups of addressees, offering greater novelty to undergraduates and post-graduates.
Conclusion: YouTube and similar social media websites may have a potential capacity and value in complementing continuing education in the technique of oral implantology. As a means of achieving an acceptable level of knowledge about the topic when used alone, it should not be considered to be suitable at this point in time.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.