The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Quality and Readability of Web-based Arabic Health Information on Denture Hygiene: An Infodemiology Study

Mohammed N Alhajj, Mohammed Mashyakhy, Zaihan Ariffin, Zuryati Ab-Ghani, Yanti Johari, Nurul S Salim

Citation Information : Alhajj MN, Mashyakhy M, Ariffin Z, Ab-Ghani Z, Johari Y, Salim NS. Quality and Readability of Web-based Arabic Health Information on Denture Hygiene: An Infodemiology Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (9):956-960.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2918

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 19-01-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: This study aimed to assess the quality and readability of the available health information on the net regarding denture hygiene. Materials and methods: Three search engines (Google, Yahoo!, and Bing) were searched. The first 20 consecutive websites from each engine were obtained and checked for eligibility. For the quality of the websites, the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode), the DISCERN tool, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmarks, and Google PageRank were used for the assessment of the included websites. For readability, an online web tool was used, including well-known analyzing indices [Flesch Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE)]. The acceptable readability level was set to be ≥80.0 for the FRE and <7 for the FKGL and SMOG. The data were presented in frequencies and percentages. Results: Out of the 60 screened websites, 14 websites were eligible for analysis. There was only one (7.1%) website that had the HONcode seal. The mean score of all websites based on the DISCERN tool was 29.6 ± 12.1, with no website achieved the high score (≥65). Only one (7.1%) website scored >5 based on Google PageRank. Regarding JAMA benchmarks, all websites achieved a mean score of 2.57 ± 1.1. The mean grade level based on the FKGL was 8.4 ± 6.3. All websites had a score of <7 according to the SMOG index. The mean score of the readability ease index was 90.5 ± 16.4. Conclusion: Most of the dental health information on denture hygiene available on the Arabic websites did not have the required level of quality, regardless of being readable and comprehensible by most of the general people. Clinical significance: Directing the patients to the appropriate websites related to their cases is the responsibility of the dentists.

  1. Kanli A, Demirel F, Sezgin Y. Oral candidosis, denture cleanliness and hygiene habits in an elderly population. Aging Clin Exp Res 2005;17(6):502–507. DOI: 10.1007/BF03327418.
  2. Nagaral S, Desai RG, Kamble V, et al. Isolation of candida species from the oral cavity and fingertips of complete denture wearers. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(6):712–716. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1604.
  3. Keng SB, Lim M. Denture plaque distribution and the effectiveness of a perborate-containing denture cleanser. Quintesence Int 1996;27(5):341–345.
  4. Pietrokovski J, Azuelos J, Tau S, et al. Oral findings in elderly nursing home residents in selected countries: oral hygiene conditions and plaque accumulation on denture surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73(2):136–141. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80152-0.
  5. Abelson DC. Denture plaque and denture cleansers. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45(4):376–379. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90094-9.
  6. Kulak-Ozkan Y, Kazazoglu E, Arikan A. Oral hygiene habits, denture cleanliness, presence of yeasts and stomatitis in elderly people. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(3):300–304. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00816.x.
  7. Jeganathan S, Payne JA, Thean HP. Denture stomatitis in an elderly edentulous asian population. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24(6):468–472. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00523.x.
  8. Samaranayake L. Host factors and oral candidosis. In: Samaranayake LP, McFarlane TW, ed. Oral candidosis. Bristol: Wright; 1990. pp. 66–103.
  9. Seidman JJ, Steinwachs D, Rubin HR. Conceptual framework for a new tool for evaluating the quality of diabetes consumer-information web sites. J Med Internet Res 2003;5(4):e29. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5.4.e29.
  10. Fahy E, Hardikar R, Fox A, et al. Quality of patient health information on the internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape. Australas Med J 2014;7(1):24–28. DOI: 10.4066/AMJ.2014.1900.
  11. Purcell GP, Wilson P, Delamothe T. The quality of health information on the internet. BMJ 2002;324(7337):557–558. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.557.
  12. Sun Y, Zhang Y, Gwizdka J, et al. Consumer evaluation of the quality of online health information: systematic literature review of relevant criteria and indicators. J Med Int Res 2019;21(5):e12522. DOI: 10.2196/12522.
  13. Leaffer TR. Quality of health information on the internet. JAMA 2001;286(17):2092–2095. DOI: 10.1001/jama.286.17.2092.
  14. Almaiman S, Bahkali S, Alabdulatif N, et al. Promoting oral health using social media platforms: seeking Arabic online oral health related information (OHRI). Stud Health Technol Inform 2016;226:283–286.
  15. Alnemary FM, Alnemary FM, Alamri AS, et al. Characteristics of Arabic websites with information on autism. Neurosciences (Riyadh) 2017;22(2):143–145. DOI: 10.17712/nsj.2017.2.20160574.
  16. Alkhateeb JM, Alhadidi MS. Information about epilepsy on the internet: an exploratory study of Arabic websites. Epilepsy Behav 2018;78:288–290. DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2017.07.012.
  17. Alnaim L. Evaluation breast cancer information on the internet in Arabic. J Cancer Educ 2019;34(4):810–818. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-018-1378-9.
  18. Alakhali MS. Quality assessment of information on oral cancer provided at Arabic speaking websites. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2020;21(4):961–966. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.4.961.
  19. Boyer C, Baujard V, Geissbuhler A. Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011;169:53–57.
  20. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, et al. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53(2): 105–111. DOI: 10.1136/jech.53.2.105.
  21. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: Caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997;277(15):1244–1245. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039.
  22. Edmunds MR, Barry RJ, Denniston AK. Readability assessment of online ophthalmic patient information. JAMA Ophthalmol 2013;131(12):1610–1616. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.5521.
  23. Kher A, Johnson S, Griffith R. Readability assessment of online patient education material on congestive heart failure. Adv Prev Med 2017;2017:9780317. DOI: 10.1155/2017/9780317.
  24. Chestnutt IG, Reynolds K. Perceptions of how the internet has impacted on dentistry. Br Dent J 2006;200(3):161–165, discussion 149. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4813195.
  25. Ali S, Woodmason K, Patel N. The quality of online information regarding dental implants. Br Dent J 2014;217(9):E16. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.979.
  26. Jayaratne YS, Anderson NK, Zwahlen RA. Readability of websites containing information on dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25(12):1319–1324. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12285.
  27. Parekh J, Gill DS. The quality of orthodontic practice websites. Br Dent J 2014;216(10):E21. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.403.
  28. McMorrow SM, Millett DT. Adult orthodontics: a quality assessment of internet information. J Orthod 2016;43(3):186–192. DOI: 10.1080/14653125.2016.1194599.
  29. Leira-Feijoo Y, Ledesma-Ludi Y, Seoane-Romero JM, et al. Available web-based dental implants information for patients. how good is it? Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(11):1276–1280. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12451.
  30. Barber S, Pavitt S, Meads D, et al. Assessment of information resources for people with hypodontia. BDJ Open 2018;4:18001. DOI: 10.1038/bdjopen.2018.1.
  31. Sacchetti P, Zvara P, Plante MK. The internet and patient education—resources and their reliability: focus on a select urologic topic. Urology 1999;53(6):1117–1120. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00662-1.
  32. Nguyen SK, Ingledew PA. Tangled in the breast cancer web: an evaluation of the usage of web-based information resources by breast cancer patients. J Cancer Educ 2013;28(4):662–668. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-013-0509-6.
  33. Borgmann H, Wölm JH, Vallo S, et al. Prostate cancer on the web-expedient tool for patients’ decision-making? J Cancer Educ 2017;32(1):135–140. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-015-0891-3.
  34. Janssen S, Fahlbusch FB, Käsmann L, et al. Radiotherapy for prostate cancer: discern quality assessment of patient-oriented websites in 2018. BMC Urol 2019;19(1):42. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-019-0474-4.
  35. Kulasegarah J, McGregor K, Mahadevan M. Quality of information on the internet-has a decade made a difference? Ir J Med Sci 2018;187(4):873–876. DOI: 10.1007/s11845-018-1790-5.
  36. Benigeri M, Pluye P. Shortcomings of health information on the internet. Health Promot Int 2003;18(4):381–386. DOI: 10.1093/heapro/dag409.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.