Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Content analysis reveals evidence-based fluoride videos on TikTok are longer and feature health professionals, highlighting widespread non-evidence-based health information.
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: = 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lueth et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: