Fluoride myths and DIY dentistry dominate oral health misinformation

by · News-Medical

The problem of misinformation in healthcare

Misinformation in healthcare refers to false, misleading, or unverified information that can influence public perceptions and patient decisions. It can spread rapidly via social media’s algorithmic systems and user-generated content.

The problem of online misinformation can be especially problematic in dentistry due to its connection to aesthetic trends and the popularity of home treatments. In many jurisdictions, marketing claims may be subject to less stringent regulation, as some dental products are treated as cosmetics (e.g., some toothpastes in Australia). Such online promotions can gain rapid visibility on platforms such as Instagram and may shape public perception.

Online misinformation may plausibly contribute to mistrust of professional care or anxiety. In dentistry, misinformation around root canal treatments and fluoride has been discussed. However, there has been little systematic synthesis of the academic literature focused on dentistry. The current study identifies how studies define misinformation and several other aspects related to poor-quality online information on oral health.

A review on online oral health misinformation

A scoping review approach was adopted as research in this area involves varied terminology and models and spans multiple online platforms. The population included creators or consumers of oral health information, and the central interest was to assess online oral health misinformation and related information quality.

Studies published in English that directly assessed misleading, false, or unsupported claims were included. Various online platforms and social media sites were considered. The final search date was 26 June 2025, which retrieved 864 records (Scopus: 288, Web of Science: 357, Ovid Medline: 219); however, only 61 made it to the final dataset.

From each study, the definition of misinformation or the related construct being assessed was extracted. Engagement metrics, e.g., likes, comments, shares, and follower counts, were also noted. Findings were grouped thematically to describe which tools or proxies were used, how misinformation and information quality were studied, and whether patient-level effects were inferred or directly measured.

The authors also distinguished between misinformation and related measures such as information quality, reliability, readability, promotional framing, and regulatory compliance, noting that poor-quality information was not automatically considered false.

Heterogeneity across platforms and key content themes

The review notes that broader social media research suggests algorithmically amplified or visually optimized content may receive more engagement. YouTube was the most studied platform, appearing in 34.4% of the papers. High-scoring videos within individual studies were generally uploaded by professional or academic sources. Instagram appeared in 27.9% of the studies and mainly dealt with aesthetic marketing and fluoride narratives. There was also evidence of low-quality information or misinformation being available through web search and general browsing. Facebook, X, and TikTok appeared in fewer studies, and the content mostly focused on orthodontic- and aligner-related short-form videos.

A diverse set of topics was covered in the studies, with fluoride and water fluoridation being the most common. Some studies assessed the reliability and quality of information on root canal treatment, while cosmetic and aesthetic dentistry were central in four studies. Do-it-yourself (DIY) remedies featured prominently in three studies, examining short-form content on TikTok and YouTube. There were recurring concerns about low reliability and incomplete disclosure concerning dental implants. Other topics included orthodontics and aligners, tobacco-related oral-health claims, and biological dentistry.

Evidence of misinformation and patient-level impact

Across topics and platforms, information quality and platform engagement did not move together. The posts that were viewed, liked, or shared most were not necessarily those that scored more highly on quality tools. A substantial share of problematic content was linked to promotions featuring exaggerated claims about professional credentials, implants, whitening, and aligners. Jurisdictional audits noted lapses in balance, disclosure, and verifiability, but enforcement outcomes were rarely discussed or measured in the papers.

Patient-level evidence was less common, as only 29 studies mentioned patient behaviors or health-related outcomes, and 17 described harm or delayed care. Most evidence is indirect, while plausible areas of concern remain. The studies presented findings related to preventive, trust, and anxiety behavior as plausible hypotheses and evidence gaps rather than established causal effects.

Gaps in the literature and recommendations reported by included studies

The review identified several important gaps in the current evidence. Most notably, few studies have directly examined whether exposure to online oral health information influences patient behavior, dental visits, or delays in seeking treatment. Researchers also found little evidence comparing interventions across different online platforms, and relatively few studies have tested strategies to counter misinformation. The authors noted that the findings may not be widely generalizable, as some population groups remain underrepresented, while inconsistent definitions and research methods make it difficult to compare studies and build a stronger evidence base.

Many of the included studies concluded with recommendations for future research, clinical practice, and policy. Several suggested that evidence-based information should be presented in ways that suit individual online platforms, making it more likely to reach and engage audiences. Two studies specifically called for targeted education, clearer enforcement standards, and more active monitoring.

Download your PDF copy by clicking here.

Journal reference: