| Literature DB >> 29354889 |
Christos Livas1, Konstantina Delli2, Nikolaos Pandis3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to investigate the popularity, content of Invisalign patient testimonials on YouTube, as well as the sentiment of the related comments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29354889 PMCID: PMC5776075 DOI: 10.1186/s40510-017-0201-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prog Orthod ISSN: 1723-7785 Impact factor: 2.750
Commenter’s status according to personal experience with or interest in Invisalign
| Viewer status |
|---|
| Invisalign patient (former or present) |
| Fixed appliance patient (former or present) |
| Experienced both types of appliances |
| Interested in orthodontics |
| Getting Invisalign soon |
| Getting fixed appliances soon |
| Eager to get Invisalign |
| Willing to get but cannot afford Invisalign |
| Regretted getting Invisalign |
| Other |
| Not specified |
Comment classification
| Overall comment | Focus of concern | Invisalign’s disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Found video useful/informative | Treatment cost | Pain |
| Commented on vlogger’s reliability/sponsoring | Complications (pain, lisp, etc.) | Lisp |
| Positive comment on vlogger’s treatment outcome | Treatment duration/wearing time | Bad odor |
| Negative comment on vlogger’s treatment outcome | Cleaning aligners/oral hygiene | Wearing time/commitment |
| Confused Invisalign with retainers | Retention/stability | Dietary consequences |
| Asked for further information | Efficiency | Public embarrassment |
| Other | Treatment procedures | Treatment cost |
| Combination | If Invisalign indicated for own malocclusion/asked for advice | Oral symptoms |
| No comment | Asked/shared information about own malocclusion/treatment/found similarities | Not indicated for all cases |
| Reason for choosing Invisalign | Other (e.g., enamel decalcification) | |
| Other | Combination | |
| Combination | No disadvantages mentioned | |
| No information asked/shared |
Fig. 1Flowchart diagram of the selection process
Descriptive statistics (median, interquartile range; IQR) of video duration, time since upload, and engagement metrics
| Median | IQR | |
|---|---|---|
| Duration (sec) | 526.0 | 417.5 |
| Time since upload (days) | 720.0 | 937.5 |
| Views | 10,940.0 | 46,529.0 |
| Subscribe | 2605.5 | 7593.5 |
| Likes | 94.0 | 160.5 |
| Dislikes | 5.0 | 25.5 |
| Comments | 33.0 | 56.5 |
P values from the median regression analysis for information completeness score (ICS), views, duration (in seconds), and time since upload (in days)
| ICS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Views | Subscribe | Likes | Dislikes | Comments | |
| 3 points | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.98 |
| 4 points | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.98 |
| 5 points | 0.90 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.79 | 0.87 |
| Duration | 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.10 | 0.51 | 0.21 |
| Time since upload | 0.26 | 0.87 | 0.63 | 0.52 | 0.67 |
P values of the Pearson’s chi-squared test for sponsorship, commenter’s status, and comment classification
| Positive sentiment | Negative sentiment | |
|---|---|---|
| Sponsorship | 0.55 | < 0.001* |
| Commenter’s status | < 0.001* | < 0.001* |
| Overall comment | < 0.001* | 0.03 |
| Focus of concern | 0.13 | < 0.001* |
| Invisalign’s disadvantages | 0.27 | < 0.001* |
*Statistically significant at p < 0.05