{"title":"The Evidence Base of Fluoride Videos on TikTok.","authors":"Annel Lueth, Lance Brendan Young","doi":"10.1111/idh.70151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The fluoride controversy has intensified in recent years, partly due to new research suggesting negative health effects. Simultaneously, TikTok has become a prominent platform for disseminating oral health-related content, but its accuracy remains uncertain. The purpose of this study is to evaluate TikTok videos addressing fluoride use, comparing the characteristics of videos which are evidence-based to those which are not.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quantitative content analysis was conducted of the first videos (N = 120) which met the search criteria: provided by TikTok in response to the search string, 'fluoride vs. no fluoride'; publicly accessible; and English-language content. Videos were viewed and coded on the following seven variables: message content (evidence base); source; fluoride position; editing style; length; view rate (views/month); and interaction index (likes/views). Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson Chi square, independent-samples t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 22.5% of the videos were evidence-based and only 40.0% were pro-fluoride, although 54.1% of the sources were health professionals. Evidence-based videos were more likely to be produced by health professionals (χ<sup>2</sup> = 7.18, df = 2, p = 0.028), carry a pro-fluoride message (χ<sup>2</sup> = 11.91, df = 2, p = 0.003), and be longer (t = 2.16, df = 118, p = 0.033) than videos without an evidence base. The evidence-based videos did not significantly differ in editing style, view rate, or interaction index.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>People using TikTok for clarity on fluoride are less likely to find evidence-based videos, and those videos tend to be pro-fluoride, feature health professionals and be longer than videos which are not evidence based.</p>","PeriodicalId":13791,"journal":{"name":"International journal of dental hygiene","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of dental hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.70151","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The fluoride controversy has intensified in recent years, partly due to new research suggesting negative health effects. Simultaneously, TikTok has become a prominent platform for disseminating oral health-related content, but its accuracy remains uncertain. The purpose of this study is to evaluate TikTok videos addressing fluoride use, comparing the characteristics of videos which are evidence-based to those which are not.
Methods: A quantitative content analysis was conducted of the first videos (N = 120) which met the search criteria: provided by TikTok in response to the search string, 'fluoride vs. no fluoride'; publicly accessible; and English-language content. Videos were viewed and coded on the following seven variables: message content (evidence base); source; fluoride position; editing style; length; view rate (views/month); and interaction index (likes/views). Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson Chi square, independent-samples t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests.
Results: Only 22.5% of the videos were evidence-based and only 40.0% were pro-fluoride, although 54.1% of the sources were health professionals. Evidence-based videos were more likely to be produced by health professionals (χ2 = 7.18, df = 2, p = 0.028), carry a pro-fluoride message (χ2 = 11.91, df = 2, p = 0.003), and be longer (t = 2.16, df = 118, p = 0.033) than videos without an evidence base. The evidence-based videos did not significantly differ in editing style, view rate, or interaction index.
Conclusions: People using TikTok for clarity on fluoride are less likely to find evidence-based videos, and those videos tend to be pro-fluoride, feature health professionals and be longer than videos which are not evidence based.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Dental Hygiene is the official scientific peer-reviewed journal of the International Federation of Dental Hygienists (IFDH). The journal brings the latest scientific news, high quality commissioned reviews as well as clinical, professional and educational developmental and legislative news to the profession world-wide. Thus, it acts as a forum for exchange of relevant information and enhancement of the profession with the purpose of promoting oral health for patients and communities.
The aim of the International Journal of Dental Hygiene is to provide a forum for exchange of scientific knowledge in the field of oral health and dental hygiene. A further aim is to support and facilitate the application of new knowledge into clinical practice. The journal welcomes original research, reviews and case reports as well as clinical, professional, educational and legislative news to the profession world-wide.