Assesses information quality on TikTok for orthodontic and orthognathic treatments, highlighting concerns.
Objectives: The surge in popularity of TikTok has revolutionized the way people consume and share information. Increasingly, patients turn to TikTok for advice and insights on medical procedures and personal health journeys as well as posting content for others, specifically those within the orthodontic and orthognathic treatment surgery age group. We aimed to evaluate the quality of information available on orthodontic and orthognathic surgery treatment on the platform. Material and Methods: The terms “Orthognathic surgery,” “Jaw Surgery,” “Orthodontic treatment,” “Orthodontics,” and “Braces” were searched on TikTok. The first 50 videos for each term were assessed for inclusion and independently rated by two assessors. Two separate scales to rate the quality of online information were used: DISCERN (range 0–5) and the Global Quality Score (GQS) (range 1–5). Cohen’s kappa test assessed inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. Results: Orthodontic treatment: A total of 150 videos were assessed and 15 were excluded (4 non-English, 10 slides, and 1 duplicate). Videos were almost equally uploaded by medical professionals (49%) and patients (46%), with others contributing 5%. The median DISCERN score was 1 out of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 0, 2). The median GQS score was 2 (IQR 1, 3). Orthognathic surgery: 100 videos were assessed and 23 were excluded (10 non-English, 9 slides, 3 duplicates, and 1 advertisement). Most videos were uploaded by patients (71%), followed by medical professionals (25%) and others (4%). The median DISCERN score was 1 out of 5 (IQR 0, 2). The median GQS score was 1 (IQR 1, 2). Conclusion: The standard of information on TikTok for orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery varies, but the overall quality is poor. Patients should be advised to be cautious of such sources of information, and healthcare professionals should aim to educate their patients on recognizing good-quality information and promoting reliable sources of information.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shirazi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: