Keywords
Indonesia - orthodontics - videos - YouTube - internet
Introduction
Internet is useful for learning tools and also spreading health-related information
and disease prevention campaign.[1]
[2] Learning, communicating, and disseminating reliable and useful health information
using the internet became more important in the pandemic era where dentists and patients
are concerned for the pandemic's effects.[3]
[4] Information on the internet can be used as a complement to complete information
provided by health professionals, family, friends, and other traditional media.[5] Easy access to health-related information is expected to increase patients' active
role in decision-making along with health professionals.[6] Health-seeking information on social media is not only for knowledge purposes but
also to gain social and emotional support from other social media users.[7] Even though social media could be used for health communication, the information
shared sometimes lacks reliability.[8] Thus, the quality and reliability of the information should be monitored to ensure
that users received correct information they need.[8]
Social media usage, such as video, provides chances to gain and assess contents that
are relevant and could be trusted by the users.[9] Nowadays, free sites that are usually used for spreading information through video
are Google, Facebook, and YouTube.[10]
[11] The use of social media in dentistry is increasing, including on YouTube.[12]
[13] Validity and accuracy are some points that we have to be cautious about when we
use information on YouTube as a source of health information. Research has shown that
the increasing usage of YouTube affects patients' decision-making in many aspects
of dental health, including in dental esthetics.[10]
[14]
[15]
Nowadays, esthetics is a popular topic in many fields, both in dentistry and in modern
society.[16] One of the important elements in esthetics assessment is the dental and oral condition,
which is considered to provide social benefits. Dental esthetics could affect others'
perceptions and yourself.[17]
[18] Dental esthetics has a bigger impact on individual's psychological status than oral,
physical, or functional status domains from oral health-related quality of life.[17] Perfectly esthetic teeth are considered as a self-esteem booster in social life.[17]
[19] There is a presumption on an interpersonal relationship where untreated teeth are
a form of indifference to self.[19] Research showed that patient urges to seek an orthodontic treatment as the patient
wants to increase his/her smile esthetics that could give a bigger impact on his/her
social life.[20] Prevalence of malocclusion in Indonesia is very high, around 80% of the population.[21] Patients' desire to enhance the esthetics of their smile prompted them to undertake
orthodontic treatment.[20] Orthodontic treatment is a treatment that focuses on correcting the position of
the teeth and correcting malocclusion. Many patients want to undergo orthodontic treatment
to improve their appearance and to be accepted in society rather than to improve their
teeth and oral function or health.[22]
Previous studies have been conducted to learn the use of video in providing health-related
information.[10]
[23] A previous study assessed the quality of videos related to dental implant by using
usefulness score and concluded that YouTube videos related to dental implant were
a limited source for the patients.[10] Study on videos about burning mouth syndrome showed that information on YouTube
is less reliable and not based on science.[23] Furthermore, research assessing orthodontic-related videos showed that YouTube may
provide an opportunity for orthodontic professionals to disseminate health information.[14]
[15]
However, the majority of these studies assessed videos in English language, while
the study on Indonesian-language videos is scarce. As Indonesia is the fourth most
populated country in the world after China, India, and the United States, with Indonesian
being used by more than 94% of the population,[24] there is a need to report the characteristics of Indonesian-language videos. In
Indonesia, there is still a lack of information about the characteristics of Indonesian-language
videos on YouTube as a media of information about orthodontics. Thus, this study aims
to assess the characteristics of Indonesian-language videos on YouTube as a media
of information related to orthodontics.
Materials and Methods
YouTube Search Strategy
Orthodontics-related video in Indonesian language uploaded on YouTube in the last
12 months were searched and screened (www.youtube.com) on September 21, 2020, by using “sort by relevance” filter. The search term used
was “merapikan gigi,” a general term for orthodontic treatment in Indonesian language.
We took the first 300 videos from the search results. Video selection for analysis
followed the flow diagram ([Fig. 1]). Videos' links were saved for further analyses.[25]
Fig. 1 Video selection for analysis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses flow diagram.
Video Selection Criteria
Videos were sorted according to inclusion and exclusion criteria as shown in [Fig. 1]. The inclusion criteria were Indonesian-language orthodontic-related video. Initial
screening of videos was performed to exclude videos in languages other than Indonesian;
videos with no sound or headings; duplicate videos; irrelevant videos such as celebrity
news; videos about other types of dental treatments; videos that were uploaded by
health companies or advertisements; videos with duration less than a minute; and videos
without information about the numbers of likes and dislikes.
Analysis of Videos
Two researchers (A.R. and D.A.M.) were independently assessed videos. Information
extracted included the video's uploader, date of upload, the number of views, likes,
dislikes, and duration of each video. The uploaders were categorized as individual
users and health care professionals. Viewers' interactions with videos were evaluated
based on the viewer's interaction index (popularity) and the viewing rate (visibility)
formulas, as presented in [Fig. 2].[25]
[26]
Fig. 2 The interaction index and the viewing rate formulas.
The quality, uniqueness, and reliability of the video were assessed using the Global
Quality Scale,[27] usefulness score,[10] and DISCERN questionnaire,[28] respectively. For objective assessment, every researcher scored videos independently.
In case of disagreement regarding the score, a third reviewer's opinion was sought
for further discussion and a decision was made by consensus.
The quality of the videos was classified according to criteria proposed by Sorensen
et al[27] as follows: 1 = very poor quality, poor flow, lack of information, and nothing useful
to patients; 2 = generally poor quality, low level of flow, some information are listed
but few important topics are addressed, very limited use for patients; 3 = moderate
quality, flow below ideal, some important information are adequately discussed, but
other pieces of information are poorly discussed, somewhat useful to patients; 4 = good
quality, generally good flow, most of the relevant information are listed, but some
topics are not addressed, useful to patients; and 5 = excellent quality, excellent
flow, very useful to patients.[26]
The evaluation of the video's usefulness score was based on the content presence in
eight nonmutually exclusive domains of information on orthodontics. Those domains
include definition, indications, contraindications, advantages, procedures involved,
complications, prognosis and survival, and cost.[10] One point was given for each contents and the total maximum score was eight. A score
of 0 to 2 indicated poor video content that composed misleading information and whose
information about eight domains evaluated was not all useful; a score of 3 to 5 indicated
moderate video content that gave a positive message related to orthodontic treatment
but poorly discussed some domains; a score of 6 to 8 showed excellent video content
that gave detailed, valid, and correct information for patients.[10]
In analyzing the reliability of the videos, a questionnaire by Singh et al was used.[28] For each aspect addressed, videos received 1 point, with possible scores ranging
from 0 to 5 points. The criteria used in this analysis were as follows: (1) Are objectives
clear and achieved? (2) Are the sources of information used reliable? (3) Is the information
presented balanced and unbiased? (4) Are additional sources of information listed
for patient reference? (5) Are areas of uncertainty mentioned?[28]
Statistical Analysis
The research data of the video characteristics were collected in Microsoft Excel,
then processed and analyzed using IBM SPSS 22.0. The inter- and intraobserver reliability
tests were conducted with the intraclass correlation coefficient. Descriptive analysis
using mean, median, and frequency was conducted to give general information related
to the characteristics of video uploaded. The normality test and the Mann–Whitney's
test were performed to determine the differences between video categories. The statistical
significance was evaluated at p < 0.05.
Results
The first 300 videos by relevance were added to a YouTube playlist. Videos were screened
by its title and there were 176 videos excluded because of irrelevant titles and duplication.
There were 124 videos assessed and 24 videos were further excluded. The exclusion
was because the videos were irrelevant (the title and content do not match), uploaded
by health companies, without sound, and less than 1 minute in duration, had no information
on likes and dislikes, and had duplicate contents with different titles. Therefore,
the remaining 100 videos were included ([Fig. 1]).
The reliability tests of 20 videos by two observers indicated excellent inter- and
intra-observer agreement (>0.80). [Table 1] shows the characteristics of the analyzed videos. The majority of the sample were
videos uploaded by individual users (n = 60, 60%) with the average duration of 493 seconds (ranging from 76 to 2,920 seconds).
The least viewed video had 71 views and the most viewed video had 847,395 views. The
most popular video had 21,891 likes and 325 dislikes. The videos analyzed averagely
had moderate quality and moderate usefulness.
Table 1
Characteristics of Indonesian-language YouTube orthodontics videos
|
Variable
|
|
Uploader, n (%)
|
|
Individual users
|
60 (60%)
|
|
Health care professionals
|
40 (40%)
|
|
Number of days of upload (d)
|
|
Mean (SD)
|
172 (103)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
166 (5–365)
|
|
Duration (s)
|
|
Mean (SD)
|
493 (361)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
415 (76–2,920)
|
|
Views
|
|
Mean (SD)
|
30,859 (103,033)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
5,115 (71–847,395)
|
|
Likes
|
|
Mean (SD)
|
542 (2,377)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
83 (1–21,891)
|
|
Dislikes
|
|
Mean (SD)
|
16 (40)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
3 (0–325)
|
|
Popularity
|
|
Mean (SD)
|
2.37 (2.20)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
1.67 (0.22–15.90)
|
|
Visibility
|
|
Mean (SD)
|
14,062 (35,787)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
3,413 (44–267,317)
|
|
Quality
|
|
Mean (SD)
|
2.54 (1.15)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
3 (1–5)
|
|
Usefulness
|
|
Mean (SD)
|
3.18 (1.67)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
3 (0–7)
|
|
Reliability
|
|
Mean (SD)
|
2.57 (0.82)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
3 (0–4)
|
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
[Fig. 3] shows characteristics of quality, usefulness, and reliability of Indonesian-language
orthodontic-related YouTube video. The majority of the videos have moderate quality,
usefulness, and reliability. It shows that most of the orthodontic-related videos
have insufficient information. A total of eight topic domains were assessed on the
video. The most discussed topic was orthodontic procedures (89%). Meanwhile, the contraindication
of the treatment was the least discussed topic (2%).
Fig. 3 Characteristics of quality, usefulness, and reliability of YouTube orthodontics video.
The characteristics of Indonesian-language orthodontic-related YouTube video based
on its uploader and duration are presented in [Table 2]. Videos uploaded by individual users and health professionals showed a significant
difference of performance in popularity and reliability, in which video uploaded by
health care professionals showed higher popularity and reliability (p = 0.010 and p = 0.001, respectively). On the other hand, a significant higher difference was found
for likes (p = 0.027), popularity (p = 0.001), quality (p = 0.001), and usefulness (p = 0.001) in video more than 6 minutes than less than 6 minutes length.
Table 2
Characteristics of Indonesian-language YouTube orthodontics video based on its uploader
and duration
|
Video's uploader
|
p-Value
|
Video's duration
|
p-Value
|
|
Individual users (n = 60)
|
Health care professionals (n = 40)
|
Up to 6 min (n = 16)
|
More than 6 min (n = 84)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
|
Views
|
5,396 (134–847,395)
|
4,372 (71–329,905)
|
0.325
|
4,464 (71–417,005)
|
5,438 (296–847,395)
|
0.752
|
|
Visibility
|
4,204 (44–267,317)
|
2,769 (142–119,530)
|
0.325
|
2,845 (44–171,607)
|
4,422 (167–267,317)
|
0.311
|
|
Likes
|
72 (1–21,891)
|
119 (1–5,816)
|
0.673
|
61 (1–1,626)
|
120 (3–21,891)
|
0.027[a]
|
|
Popularity
|
1.2 (0.2–7.0)
|
2.3 (0.2–15.9)
|
0.010[a]
|
1.0 (0.2–8.4)
|
2.2 (0.2–15.9)
|
0.001[a]
|
|
Quality
|
3.0 (1–5)
|
3.0 (1–5)
|
0.403
|
2.0 (1–5)
|
3.0 (1–5)
|
0.001[a]
|
|
Usefulness
|
3.0 (0–7)
|
3.0 (0–7)
|
0.335
|
2.0 (0–6)
|
3.5 (0–7)
|
0.001[a]
|
|
Reliability
|
2.5 (0–4)
|
3.0 (2–4)
|
0.001[a]
|
3.0 (1–4)
|
3.0 (0–4)
|
0.264
|
Note: Mann–Whitney's test.
a Significant (p-value <0.05).
[Table 3] shows visibility and popularity of Indonesian-language orthodontic-related YouTube
video based on video's quality, usefulness, and reliability. The popularity of videos
with lower quality and higher quality differed significantly (p = 0.001), in which videos with higher quality showed higher popularity. Videos with
higher quality have a higher number of likes (108 likes vs. 68 likes; p = 0.405). However, videos with lower quality have a higher number of views (5,391
vs. 3,695 views; p = 0.401). In terms of video's usefulness, there were significant differences in visibility
between videos with low and high usefulness (3,813 vs. 2,885 visibility; p = 0.008). Video with low usefulness have higher views and likes but lower popularity
than high usefulness video (5,996 vs. 3,100 views [p = 0.241]; 91 vs. 78 likes [p = 0.655]; and 1.4 vs. 2.4 score popularity [p = 0.390], respectively).Visibility and popularity of the videos were not different
according to their reliability.
Table 3
Visibility and popularity differences based on video quality, video usefulness, and
video reliability
|
Video's quality
|
p-Value
|
|
Qualities 1 and 2 (n = 47)
|
Qualities 3–5 (n = 53)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
|
Views
|
5,391 (134–417,005)
|
3,695 (71–847,395)
|
0.401
|
|
Visibility
|
3,842 (44–171,607)
|
3,073 (186–267,317)
|
0.636
|
|
Likes
|
68 (1–5,816)
|
108 (3–21,891)
|
0.405
|
|
Popularity
|
1.2 (0.2–6.5)
|
2.3 (0.5–15.9)
|
0.001[a]
|
|
Video's usefulness
|
p-Value
|
|
Usefulness scores 0–3 (n = 62)
|
Usefulness scores 4–8 (n = 38)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
Median (min–maximum)
|
|
Views
|
5,996 (134–417,005)
|
3,100 (71–847,395)
|
0.241
|
|
Visibility
|
3,813 (44–171,607)
|
2,885 (186–267,317)
|
0.008[a]
|
|
Likes
|
91 (1–5,816)
|
78 (6–21,891)
|
0.655
|
|
Popularity
|
1.4 (0.2–7.2)
|
2.4 (0.6–15.9)
|
0.390
|
|
Video's reliability
|
p-Value
|
|
Reliabilities 0–1 (n = 12)
|
Reliabilities 2–5 (n = 88)
|
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
Median (minimum–maximum)
|
|
Views
|
10,056 (134–48,191)
|
4,517 (71–847,324)
|
0.178
|
|
Visibility
|
8,112 (44–22,228)
|
3,048 (142–267,174)
|
0.143
|
|
Likes
|
132 (1–710)
|
81 (1–21,891)
|
0.429
|
|
Popularity
|
1.2 (0.6–2.7)
|
1.9 (0.2–15.9)
|
0.075
|
Note: Mann–Whitney's test.
a Significant (p-value <0.05).
Further analysis is presented in [Appendices A] and [B]. [Appendix A] shows the top 10 videos based on the total score of its quality, usefulness, and
reliability. The video with the highest quality, usefulness, and reliability scores
was the one uploaded by health care professionals. [Appendix B] shows the visibility and popularity of top 10 videos. Video with the highest popularity
was also uploaded by health care professionals. However, the highest visibility in
this study was in the videos uploaded by individual users.
Discussion
YouTube, one of the social media platforms, has gained its popularity from people
in seeking health-related information including orthodontics-related videos.[29] However, the accuracy, evidence based, and compliance are debatable.[30] Although plenty of orthodontics-related video has been posted for people to view
in different languages, most of it uploaded by individual users[14]
[26] indicate a need of contribution from the health professionals. We found out that
the number of Indonesian-language orthodontics video was also uploaded by individual
users.
In this study, the majority of the orthodontic-related videos have moderate quality.
Videos with a moderate quality show a below ideal flow, have some important information
discussed, and are quite useful to the viewers. The majority of Indonesian-language
orthodontic-related videos still have insufficient information but can be used as
information that is quite useful to the audience. Our finding supported previous research
about orthodontic-related videos in other language.[31]
[32] In making future videos, video uploaders can pay more attention to the video flow,
information coverage, and benefits for the viewers. Thus, it is hoped that the resulting
video will have good quality and be useful to viewers.
This study found that popularity and reliability were higher in videos uploaded by
health professionals, supporting previous studies.[26]
[33] This indicates that viewers rate video uploaded by health care professionals as
more trustworthy video. Furthermore, 53% of Indonesian-language orthodontic-related
YouTube videos have a moderate usefulness score, which is better than the previous
study.[10] These results indicate that the sufficiency of information in most Indonesian-language
orthodontic-related videos is still lacking. This study also shows that videos with
higher usefulness scores have higher visibility, while in previous studies, there
was no difference in visibility between videos with high or low usefulness scores.[25]
[26] In the future, video uploaders can consider the completeness of the content to make
the videos useful, thus increase its visibility. To improve the Indonesian-language
orthodontic-related YouTube videos, health workers and educational institutions play
a fundamental role in improving the quality, the content comprehensiveness, and the
reliability of this information to increase the usefulness and visibility. Collaborations
can be made between individual uploaders or influencers and health workers to reach
a vast target audience.[18]
Although duration has significant effect on viewing numbers,[34] but from the results of this study, most of the videos are more than 6 minutes in
length and have higher popularity, quality, and usefulness. This finding is in line
with previous research showing that videos with good scores have a longer duration.[10] Additionally, previous research has shown that the videos with the highest usefulness
scores are around 7 minutes long. This indicates that the video duration must be long
enough to develop the video content, but not too long which can cause viewers to lose
attention.[26] This shows that viewers do not care about longer duration as long as the video has
good quality and usefulness. If the video has good quality and usefulness, viewers
may be more interested in watching the video until the end.
From the aspect of video reliability, it was found that there was no difference in
visibility and popularity between videos with high or low reliability. This contradicts
previous research showing that high-reliability videos have higher visibility and
popularity.[25] These findings indicate that the Indonesian-language orthodontic-related video is
still watched despite the low reliability. However, popularity is higher for videos
that have high reliability. This shows that the viewer can determine a reliable video
as a source of information about orthodontics. Video uploaders can pay attention to
clear objectives, remain neutral, include references, and explain if there are still
doubts. This aims to improve the video's reliability so that videos can be used as
a reliable source of information.
The video with the highest number of views and likes in this study is a video that
discusses the orthodontic treatment process. The video is of excellent quality and
a good usefulness score. The quality, flow, and completeness of the video information
are excellent and very useful to the audience. Besides, the information on the video
covers important topics. This is similar to previous findings, stating that the video
with the most views and likes is a video with excellent quality.[10]
[26] However, the video has the highest number of dislikes. This contradicts findings
from other studies which showed that videos with the most dislikes had poor usefulness
scores.[10] In this study, the videos with the most dislikes also had a higher number of likes
and popularity. This shows that many people still liked the video because of its good
quality, usefulness, and reliability.
This study has several limitations. YouTube is a dynamic platform that allows videos
to be uploaded and deleted at any time, resulting in different search results at different
times.[26] To reduce the possibility of bias in this study, video data collection was performed
at the same time. In other studies, there is a category of videos uploaded by health
companies.[10] However, in this study, there were only nine videos uploaded by health companies.
Therefore, videos uploaded by health companies were not included. Further research
is needed on videos uploaded by other parties such as health companies and the government.
Conclusion
Most of the Indonesian-language orthodontics-related videos posted on YouTube were
of moderate quality, moderate usefulness, and moderate reliability. Although most
of the videos in this study uploaded by individual, significant popularity and reliability
were marked among health professionals. Moreover, popularity and usefulness were significant
for video more than 6 minutes. Health professional should contribute more quality,
usefulness, and reliable health-related videos in social media platform for public
seeking information in oral health.
Appendix A
Characteristics of top 10 videos based on quality, usefulness, and reliability scores
|
Video title
|
Uploader
|
Number of days since uploaded
|
Duration (s)
|
Quality
|
Usefulness
|
Reliability
|
Total
|
|
Pakai retainer setelah lepas behel/kawat gigi (Use a retainer after removing the braces)
|
Professional
|
319
|
728
|
5
|
7
|
4
|
16
|
|
Cara kerja kawat gigi (dan kenapa prosesnya lama) (How braces work [and why the process
takes so long])
|
Individual
|
317
|
608
|
5
|
6
|
4
|
15
|
|
Kenali macam alat ortodonti (Get to know the types of orthodontic appliances)
|
Professional
|
38
|
184
|
5
|
6
|
4
|
15
|
|
Part 1 Prosedur pemasangan kawat gigi/behel—konsultasi, foto gigi, dan cetak gigi (Part 1 Procedure
for installing braces/braces—consultation, dental photos, and dental prints)
|
Individual
|
196
|
891
|
5
|
6
|
3
|
14
|
|
Penting! 10 hal yang wajib kamu tahu sebelum pasang behel gigi (Important! 10 things
you must know before installing braces)
|
Professional
|
57
|
1,074
|
5
|
6
|
3
|
14
|
|
Mau pakai behel gigi, simak dulu tips dari dokter gigi spesialis ortodonti #dokterbicara
(If you want to use braces, take a look at the tips from an orthodontic specialist
#doctortalk)
|
Professional
|
39
|
1,082
|
5
|
6
|
3
|
14
|
|
Dokter Gigi Bercerita—Pembahasan seputar ortodonti (kawat gigi) ([Dentist tells story]—discussion
about orthodontics [braces])
|
Professional
|
258
|
712
|
5
|
6
|
3
|
14
|
|
Tonton ini sebelum pasang behel! Pengalaman memakai behel (Watch this before putting
on braces! Experience wearing braces)
|
Professional
|
16
|
642
|
4
|
7
|
3
|
14
|
|
Pengalaman pasang behel! Harga, proses sampai hasil (Braces experience! price, process,
to results)
|
Individual
|
168
|
495
|
4
|
6
|
3
|
13
|
|
Harus berapa lama pakai behel transparan sampai gigi rapi (How long do you have to
use transparent braces until your teeth are neat)
|
Individual
|
266
|
430
|
4
|
6
|
3
|
13
|
Appendix B
Visibility and popularity of top 10 videos
|
Video title
|
Uploader
|
Number of days since uploaded
|
Durations (s)
|
Visibility
|
Popularity
|
Views
|
Likes
|
Dislikes
|
|
Pakai retainer setelah lepas behel/kawat gigi (Use a retainer after removing the braces)
|
Professional
|
319
|
728
|
5,932
|
2.3
|
18,925
|
448
|
8
|
|
Cara kerja kawat gigi (dan kenapa prosesnya lama) (How braces work [and why the process
takes so long])
|
Individual
|
317
|
608
|
267,317
|
2.5
|
847,395
|
21,891
|
325
|
|
Kenali macam alat ortodonti (Get to know the types of orthodontic appliances)
|
Professional
|
38
|
184
|
186
|
8.4
|
71
|
6
|
0
|
|
Part 1 Prosedur pemasangan kawat gigi/behel—konsultasi, foto gigi, dan cetak gigi
(Part 1 procedure for installing braces/braces—consultation, dental photos, and dental
prints)
|
Individual
|
196
|
891
|
69,658
|
0.72
|
136,531
|
1,057
|
68
|
|
Penting! 10 hal yang wajib kamu tahu sebelum pasang behel gigi (Important! 10 things
you must know before installing braces)
|
Professional
|
57
|
1,074
|
2,747
|
4.09
|
1,566
|
64
|
0
|
|
Mau pakai behel gigi, simak dulu tips dari dokter gigi spesialis ortodonti #dokterbicara
(If you want to use braces, take a look at the tips from an orthodontic specialist
#doctortalk)
|
Professional
|
39
|
1,082
|
2,500
|
6.05
|
975
|
60
|
1
|
|
Dokter Gigi Bercerita—Pembahasan seputar ortodonti (kawat gigi) (Dentist tells story)—discussion
about orthodontics [braces])
|
Professional
|
258
|
712
|
271
|
3.00
|
700
|
21
|
0
|
|
Tonton ini sebelum pasang behel! Pengalaman memakai behel (Watch this before putting
on braces! Experience wearing braces)
|
Professional
|
16
|
642
|
2,162
|
15.9
|
346
|
55
|
0
|
|
Pengalaman pasang behel! Harga, proses sampai hasil (Braces experience! Price, process,
to results)
|
Individual
|
168
|
495
|
87,216
|
2.10
|
146,524
|
3,157
|
75
|
|
Harus berapa lama pakai behel transparan sampai gigi rapi (How long do you have to
use transparent braces until your teeth are neat)
|
Individual
|
266
|
430
|
3,223
|
0.7
|
8,575
|
63
|
3
|
