Online oral health misinformation and information quality: a scoping review

Online oral-health misinformation and low-quality information are increasingly studied, but the dental evidence base remains fragmented across platforms, topics and measurement approaches. This scoping review mapped how online oral-health misinformation and information quality have been defined, measured and reported, and identified the extent to which patient-level outcomes have been directly examined.

A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR. Searches of Scopus, Web of Science and Ovid Medline identified 864 records. After screening, 61 studies were included following exclusion of two non-English articles and three studies where AI chatbots were the primary object of analysis. Data were charted by platform, misinformation or information-quality construct, study design, uploader type, engagement measure, quality assessment method and evidence directness. A formal risk-of-bias assessment was not undertaken, consistent with the scoping review design.

Research increased markedly from 2022 onwards, with YouTube the most frequently studied platform, followed by Instagram, websites and Facebook. Most studies were descriptive content audits that assessed information quality, reliability, readability, uploader type or engagement. Professional or institutional content often scored higher for quality, while lower-quality, commercial or lay content sometimes attracted greater platform engagement within individual studies. However, engagement measures indicated visibility or interaction only, and did not establish patient-level impact. Fluoride, root canal treatment, aesthetic dentistry, implants, orthodontics and do-it-yourself remedies were recurring topics.

Research on online oral-health misinformation and information quality is expanding, but remains dominated by descriptive audits of public online platforms. Direct evidence linking online exposure to patient trust, treatment decisions, care avoidance or clinical outcomes remains limited. Future studies should use clearer definitions, distinguish misinformation from information quality, and measure patient-level and intervention outcomes more directly.