Journals / International Dental Research / 2021 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: Supplement 1

Is Google Trends a reliable way to determine digital dental epidemiology?

Pages
38–46
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: We concluded in this study that Google Trends is not a reliable tool for dental epidemiology.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Google Trends, which allows Internet users to interact with and search data, can provide in-depth information about new phenomena regarding population and health-related behavior and is a tool that can be accessed free of charge.
📊
Key Findings & Data:With the widespread use of dental implants in almost every country in the world today, an increase has also been reported in the prevalence of peri-implantitis (PP), which is a peri-implant disease.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: We concluded in this study that Google Trends is not a reliable tool for dental epidemiology.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: Google Trends, which allows Internet users to interact with and search data, can provide in-depth information about new phenomena regarding population and health-related behavior and is a tool that can be accessed free of charge. With the widespread use of dental implants in almost every country in the world today, an increase has also been reported in the prevalence of peri-implantitis (PP), which is a peri-implant disease. The aim of this study is to determine whether the rates of PP that were obtained from previous studies on this disease are in line with the data obtained using Google Trends. Methodology: Using observational, ecological research, we searched Google Trends for the following query terms: peri implantitis + periimplantitis, to obtain the volume of this Internet search query. The queries were searched within Spain (ES), Germany (DE), the Netherlands (NL), the United Kingdom (UK), and Turkey from January 2010 to December 2019. Results: An examination of the search results for “peri-implantitis + periimplantitis” on Google Trends found that the largest numbers of searches for these words were made from the country of ES, and the smallest numbers were made from Turkey. It took two years to make forecasts based on the results, and the study determined that there has been a change in the trends in countries that were searched for these words. Also, the results obtained in previous studies for the prevalence of periimplantitis were not similar to the data obtained from Google Trends. Conclusion: We concluded in this study that Google Trends is not a reliable tool for dental epidemiology.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜNER, D. D., İZOL, B. S. (2022). Is Google Trends a reliable way to determine digital dental epidemiology?. International Dental Research, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: Supplement 1, 38–46. https://ajindex.com/articles/539491

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Busenlechner D, Fürhauser R, Haas R, Watzek G, Mailath G, Pommer B. Long-term implant success at the academy for oral implantology: 8-year follow-up and risk factor analysis. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2014;44(3):102–8. (Crossref
  2. Lindhe J, Meyle J. Peri-implant diseases: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology. In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2008. p. 282–5. (Crossref
  3. Ferreira SD, Silva GLM, Cortelli JR, Costa JE, Costa FO. Prevalence and risk variables for peri-implant disease in Brazilian subjects. J Clin Periodontol. 2006;33(12):929–35. (Crossref
  4. Zitzmann NU, Berglundh T. Definition and prevalence of periimplant diseases. In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2008. p. 286–91. (Crossref
  5. Meffert RM. Periodontitis vs. peri-implantitis: The same disease? The same treatment? Vol. 7, Critical Reviews in Oral Biology and Medicine. 1996. p. 278–91. (Crossref
  6. Charalampakis G, Rabe P, Leonhardt Å, Dahlén G. A follow-up study of peri-implantitis cases after treatment. J Clin Periodontol. 2011;38(9):864–71. (Crossref
  7. Kordbacheh Changi K, Finkelstein J, Papapanou PN. Periimplantitis prevalence, incidence rate, and risk factors: A study of electronic health records at a U.S. dental school. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(4):306–14. (Crossref
  8. Derks J, Schaller D, Håkansson J, Wennström JL, Tomasi C, Berglundh T. Effectiveness of Implant Therapy Analyzed in a Swedish Population: Prevalence of Peri-implantitis. J Dent Res. 2016;95(1):43–9. (Crossref
  9. Koldsland OC, Scheie AA, Aass AM. Prevalence of PeriImplantitis Related to Severity of the Disease With Different Degrees of Bone Loss. J Periodontol. 2010;81(2):231–8. (Crossref
  10. Cline RJW, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the internet: The state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001;16(6):671–92. (Crossref
  11. Johnson HA, Wagner MM, Hogan WR, Chapman W, Olszewski RT, Dowling J, et al. Analysis of Web access logs for surveillance of influenza. Medinfo. 2004;11(Pt 2):1202–6
  12. Eysenbach G. Infodemiology: tracking flu-related searches on the web for syndromic surveillance. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006;244–8
  13. Polgreen PM, Chen Y, Pennock DM, Nelson FD. Using internet searches for influenza surveillance. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(11):1443–8. (Crossref
  14. Carneiro HA, Mylonakis E. Google trends: A web-based tool for real-time surveillance of disease outbreaks. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(10):1557–64. (Crossref
  15. Brownstein JS, Freifeld C