Hatice Kübra Olkun1, Arzu Arı Demirkaya1, Banu Aras2. 1. 1 Department of Orthodontics, İstanbul Okan University, School of Dentistry, University of Okan, İstanbul, Turkey. 2. 2 Private Practice, Beşiktaş, İstanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the quality of Internet information in the English language about lingual orthodontics. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An Internet search using the keywords 'lingual orthodontics', 'lingual braces', 'lingual treatment' and 'lingual brackets' was conducted on the four most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing and AOL) on 4 February 2017. The first 10 websites for each keyword and search engine were screened. After excluding duplicates and irrelevant websites, the remaining were assessed using the DISCERN tool and JAMA benchmarks. RESULTS: Of the original 160 websites found, 132 were excluded (102 duplicates, 30 unrelated). The authors of the remaining 28 websites were orthodontists (39.2%), professional organisations (21%), unspecified (17.8%), dentists (7.1%), dental hygienists (7.1%) and patients (7.1%). The mean overall DISCERN score for the 28 websites was poor (36.3). Only 1/28 websites met all four principles of JAMA, four websites met three criteria, 10 websites met two criteria and 13 websites met one criterion. CONCLUSION: Online information on lingual orthodontics was of poor quality; moreover, unbiased and balanced information was rare. Orthodontists should be aware that the average quality of information on the Internet about lingual orthodontics might be inadequate and should direct patients to higher-quality websites.
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the quality of Internet information in the English language about lingual orthodontics. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An Internet search using the keywords 'lingual orthodontics', 'lingual braces', 'lingual treatment' and 'lingual brackets' was conducted on the four most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing and AOL) on 4 February 2017. The first 10 websites for each keyword and search engine were screened. After excluding duplicates and irrelevant websites, the remaining were assessed using the DISCERN tool and JAMA benchmarks. RESULTS: Of the original 160 websites found, 132 were excluded (102 duplicates, 30 unrelated). The authors of the remaining 28 websites were orthodontists (39.2%), professional organisations (21%), unspecified (17.8%), dentists (7.1%), dental hygienists (7.1%) and patients (7.1%). The mean overall DISCERN score for the 28 websites was poor (36.3). Only 1/28 websites met all four principles of JAMA, four websites met three criteria, 10 websites met two criteria and 13 websites met one criterion. CONCLUSION: Online information on lingual orthodontics was of poor quality; moreover, unbiased and balanced information was rare. Orthodontists should be aware that the average quality of information on the Internet about lingual orthodontics might be inadequate and should direct patients to higher-quality websites.