Cross-sectional analysis reveals low overall quality and reliability of YouTube dental photography videos, indicating a need for professional contributions.
YouTube is increasingly used as an accessible source of educational information in dentistry; however, the quality, reliability, and instructional value of videos on dental photography training remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the educational quality, reliability, and engagement characteristics of YouTube videos related to dental photography. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the search terms “Dental Photography” and “Mobile Dental Photography” on YouTube videos. The top 100 videos for each keyword were screened, and 113 eligible videos were included. Video characteristics such as duration, view count, likes, dislikes, view rate, and engagement index were recorded. Video quality and reliability were assessed using the Modified Global Quality Scale (mGQS), the DISCERN tool, and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Videos were categorised by upload source as dentist/clinician, academic institution, or health website/organisation. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman correlation tests ( p < 0.05). The mean mGQS, DISCERN, and JAMA scores were 2.18 ± 0.91, 30.27 ± 8.26, and 1.34 ± 0.82, respectively, indicating generally low quality and reliability. Videos uploaded by dentists/clinicians had significantly higher mGQS, DISCERN, and JAMA scores compared to those uploaded by health websites ( p < 0.05). Academic videos also showed relatively higher quality scores, despite their limited number. Significant positive correlations were found among the quality scores. Videos on dental photography posted on YouTube have generally been of low quality and reliability. Videos uploaded by dentists/clinicians and academic sources tended to provide higher-quality information compared to those uploaded by health websites. With greater involvement from dental professionals and academic institutions, this topic will become even more significant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Güdül et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: