Oral Health Misinformation and Treatment Choices Among Adult Dental Patients

Chen Qiong; Shieny; Wienaldi

doi:10.61919/qe2bxc49

Authors

Chen Qiong Universitas Prima Indonesia Author
Shieny Universitas Prima Indonesia Author
Wienaldi Universitas Prima Indonesia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61919/qe2bxc49

Keywords:

dental patients; oral health misinformation; treatment choice; social media; digital health literacy; shared decision-making; qualitative research.

Abstract

Background: Oral health misinformation is increasingly encountered through social media, product marketing, online reviews, family advice, and informal digital networks. Although misleading dental claims are often treated as a digital literacy problem, their influence on treatment decisions may be shaped by fear, cost, trust, symptom uncertainty, preference for natural remedies, and expectations created by visual media. Objective: This study explored how adult dental patients encountered, interpreted, and negotiated oral health misinformation during recent dental treatment decision-making. Methods: A qualitative interview-based study was conducted among 10 adult dental patients who had recently faced a dental treatment decision and had encountered oral health information through online or interpersonal sources. Semi-structured interviews explored information sources, credibility judgments, emotional and financial influences, professional consultation, and perceived effects on treatment preferences. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Four interrelated themes were identified: self-diagnosis and symptom interpretation; persuasive credibility cues in digital spaces; cost, fear, and naturalness as decision shortcuts; and the corrective yet uneven influence of professional consultation. Misinformation was described as reshaping symptom meaning, reinforcing delay or avoidance, encouraging product use, supporting antibiotic expectations, and creating unrealistic cosmetic or procedural expectations. Respectful, specific, and transparent dental communication helped some participants revise misinformation-influenced beliefs. Conclusion: Oral health misinformation should be understood as a communication, trust, and service-experience issue embedded within dental decision-making. Myth-sensitive chairside discussion, transparent pricing, and accessible professional digital content may reduce misinformation-related uncertainty.

References

1. World Health Organization. Global oral health status report: towards universal health coverage for oral health by 2030. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022.

2. Peres MA, Macpherson LMD, Weyant RJ, Daly B, Venturelli R, Mathur MR, et al. Oral diseases: a global public health challenge. Lancet. 2019;394(10194):249-260. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31146-8.

3. Watt RG, Daly B, Allison P, Macpherson LMD, Venturelli R, Listl S, et al. Ending the neglect of global oral health: time for radical action. Lancet. 2019;394(10194):261-272. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31144-4.

4. Suarez-Lledo V, Alvarez-Galvez J. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(1):e17187. doi:10.2196/17187.

5. Farrokhi F, Mohebbi SZ, Farrokhi F, Khami MR. Social media as a tool for oral health promotion: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2023;18(12):e0296102. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296102.

6. Felgner S, Henschke C, Hartmann M, Schwendicke F. Reasons for choosing dental treatments: a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2022;17(5):e0267656. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267656.

7. Al-Khalifa K. The use of Instagram among dental patients in Saudi Arabia. Acta Inform Med. 2024;32(1):54-60. doi:10.5455/aim.2024.32.54-60.

8. Alhomsi A, AlSuleiman A, Alhajji M, Alzahrani A. Exploring how people interact with dental misinformation on social media. Cureus. 2024;16:e56625. doi:10.7759/cureus.56625.

9. Jung M, Seo M. YouTube videos about root canal treatment. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:523. doi:10.1186/s12903-022-02540-4.

10. Esmaeilzadeh F, Mohammadi TM, Hajizamani A, Moradi G. Content analysis of fluoride-related posts on Instagram. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24:1332. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-04913-3.

11. Gestre RD, Aboulhosn S, Cheng B, Sheats R. Assessing #dentist content on TikTok. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2024;52(1):2362825. doi:10.1080/19424396.2024.2362825.

12. Al-Khalifa KS, AlShehri A, AlJasser R. Instagram impact on dental consumers: toothpaste hashtags. Front Oral Health. 2025;5:1420500. doi:10.3389/froh.2024.1420500.

13. BinHamdan RH, Alghamdi A, Alshahrani I, Almutairi A. Social media use and oral health-related misconceptions. JMIR Form Res. 2025;9:e70071. doi:10.2196/70071.

14. Rasheed IB, Al-Batayneh OB, Al-Rousan M, Alomari Q. First insight into oral health misinformation in Jordan. PLoS One. 2025;20(6):e0325513. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325513.

15. Riyaz MM, Khanagar SB, Al-Ehaideb A, Vishwanathaiah S. Oral health misinformation on YouTube. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024;16 Suppl:S1038. doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1038_24.

16. Basch CH, MacLean SA, Romero RA, Ethan D. Assessment of fluoride related posts on Instagram. Health Promot Perspect. 2019;9(1):85-88. doi:10.15171/hpp.2019.11.

17. Wang Y, McKee M, Torbica A, Stuckler D. Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc Sci Med. 2019;240:112552. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552.

18. Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D. Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;41:433-451. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127.

19. Vraga EK, Bode L. Defining misinformation and understanding its bounded nature: using expertise and evidence for describing misinformation. Polit Commun. 2020;37(1):136-144. doi:10.1080/10584609.2020.1716500.

20. Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Schmid P, Fazio LK, Brashier N, et al. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nat Rev Psychol. 2022;1:13-29. doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y.

21. Pennycook G, Rand DG. The psychology of fake news. Trends Cogn Sci. 2021;25(5):388-402. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007.

22. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018.

23. Kallio H, Pietila AM, Johnson M, Kangasniemi M. Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(12):2954-2965. doi:10.1111/jan.13031.

24. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage; 2021.

25. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1):1609406917733847. doi:10.1177/1609406917733847.

26. Guest G, Namey E, Chen M. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232076. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0232076.

27. Hayer N, Binnie VI, Clarkson JE, Bonetti D. General dental practitioners’ perceptions of shared decision-making. Br Dent J. 2022;232:645-650. doi:10.1038/s41415-022-3980-9.

28. Chambers DW. Introducing shared decision making to dentistry. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2025;53(1):2460676. doi:10.1080/19424396.2025.2460676.

29. Mishu MP, Faisal MR, Macnamara A, Sabbah W. Barriers and facilitators for oral health service use among adults: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(7):4344. doi:10.3390/ijerph19074344.

30. FDI World Dental Federation. Vision 2030: delivering optimal oral health for all. Geneva: FDI World Dental Federation; 2021.