ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2024
Uncovering a pseudoscience: an analysis of 'biological dentistry' Instagram posts.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Health Literacy and Oral Health Behaviors Among Dental Medicine Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Measuring Digital Oral Health Literacy in the Social Media Era: Psychometric Validation of the Romanian Version of the Social Media Oral Health Literacy Questionnaire (SMOHLQ).Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Root Canals and Conspiracies: A Social Semiotic Analysis of Digital Narratives on Social Media and the Promotion of Misinformation.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis infodemiology study aimed to analyze characteristics of English-language Instagram posts on 'Biological Dentistry'. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing CrowdTangle, we analyzed 500 'Biological Dentistry' posts published on Instagram from May 2017 to May 2022. Two researchers assessed each post for facticity, motivation, author's profile, sentiment, and interaction metrics. Statistical analysis was employed to compare interaction metrics between dichotomized categories of posts' characteristics and determine predictors of misinformation and user engagement.
resultsOver half of the posts (58.4%) were from health-related authors, and a considerable number contained misinformation (68.2%) or were financially motivated (52%). Sentiment was mostly negative or neutral (59.8%). Misinformation was associated with financial motivation (OR = 2.12) and health-related authors (OR = 5.56), while non-health-related authors' posts associated with higher engagement (OR = 1.98). Reliable content, non-health-related authorship, and positive sentiment were associated with increased user interaction.
conclusionMisinformation about 'Biological Dentistry' on Instagram is mainly spread by financially incentivized health-related authors. Yet, non-health-related authors' posts resonate more with audiences, highlighting a nuanced relationship between content facticity, authorship, and engagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.