Journal of Multidisciplinary Dental Research
DOI: 10.38138/JMDR/v12.1.25.66
Volume: 12, Issue: 1, Pages: 12-17
Original Article
R Constance Wiener1*, Christopher Waters2, Ruchi Bhandari3
1Department of Dental Public Health and Professional Practice, School of Dentistry, West Virginia University, 104a Health Sciences Addition, PO Box9415, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA
2Department of Dental Research, School of Dentistry, West Virginia University, 106a Health Sciences Addition, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA
3Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, West Virginia University, Robert C Byrd Health Sciences Center North, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA
*Corresponding Author
Email: [email protected]
Received Date:15 October 2025, Accepted Date:16 February 2026, Published Date:09 July 2026
When the public searches internet websites for dental information, they are often presented with websites with advertisements, and misinformation as well as with needed health information. The purpose of this research is to assess internet website returns for information regarding fluoride safety. Google Chrome®, Mozilla Firefox®, and Microsoft Bing® were the web browsers that were used with key words “fluoride safety.” From each web browser, the top 20 returned results were evaluated (n=60). The quality of the remaining articles was evaluated with the SMOG readability criteria, the 4-point Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria, and a 13-point Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool that was modified for the topic of fluoride safety (MEQIP). The mean JAMA quality criteria score for the 37 unique returns was 2.3 (SD, 1.0). The mean MEQIP score for the 37 unique returns was 9.5 (SD, 1.9). The minimum score was 4 and the maximum score was 12. The mean SMOG grade-level readability score for the 37 unique returns was an equivalent grade level of 14.7 (SD, 2.9). The minimum SMOG score was grade 9.3. The maximum SMOG score was grade 21.4. The articles were all similar in reading difficulty. The rank of return of the article was not significantly associated with any quality criteria. The results of this research indicated that the reading grade level was consistently at a high level and the quality needed improvement.
Keywords: Fluoride safety, Health literature, Website, Web browsers
1. Do Nascimento IJ, Pizarro AB, Almeida JM, Azzopardi-Muscat N, Gonçalves MA, Björklund M, et al. Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2022; 100 (9). Available from: https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.21.287654
2. Desai AN, Ruidera D, Steinbrink JM, Granwehr B, Lee DH. Misinformation and Disinformation: The Potential Disadvantages of Social Media in Infectious Disease and How to Combat Them. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2022; 74 (Supplement_3). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciac109
3. Morley J, Cowls J, Taddeo M, Floridi L. Public Health in the Information Age: Recognizing the Infosphere as a Social Determinant of Health. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020; 22 (8). Available from: https://doi.org/10.2196/19311
4. Finney Rutten LJ, Blake KD, Greenberg-Worisek AJ, Allen SV, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Online Health Information Seeking Among US Adults: Measuring Progress Toward a Healthy People 2020 Objective. Public Health Reports®. 2019; 134 (6). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354919874074
5. Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, Beuschel B, Farah MH, Katabi A, et al. Can Patients Trust Online Health Information? A Meta-narrative Systematic Review Addressing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2019; 34 (9). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05109-0
6. Frangos Z, Steffens M, Leask J. Water fluoridation and the quality of information available online. International Dental Journal. 2018; 68 (4). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/idj.12377
7. World Health Organization. Digital Channels. Combating misinformation online; c2025 [cited 2025 March 7]. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/digital-health-and-innovation/digital-channels/combatting-misinformation-online
8. Wang Y, McKee M, Torbica A, Stuckler D. Systematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-related Misinformation on Social Media. Social Science & Medicine. 2019; 240 Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552
9. Lotto M, Sá Menezes T, Zakir Hussain I, Tsao SF, Ahmad Butt Z, P Morita P, et al. Characterization of False or Misleading Fluoride Content on Instagram: Infodemiology Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2022; 24 (5). Available from: https://doi.org/10.2196/37519
10. Helmi M, Spinella MK, Seymour B. Community water fluoridation online: an analysis of the digital media ecosystem. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 2018; 78 (4). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jphd.12268
11. Lotto M, Zakir Hussain I, Kaur J, Butt ZA, Cruvinel T, Morita PP. Analysis of Fluoride-Free Content on Twitter: Topic Modeling Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2023; 25 Available from: https://doi.org/10.2196/44586
12. Seymour B, Getman R, Saraf A, Zhang LH, Kalenderian E. When Advocacy Obscures Accuracy Online: Digital Pandemics of Public Health Misinformation Through an Antifluoride Case Study. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105 (3). Available from: https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.302437
13. Clark MB, Keels MA, Slayton RL, Braun PA, Fisher-Owens SA, Huff QA, et al. Fluoride Use in Caries Prevention in the Primary Care Setting. Pediatrics. 2020; 146 (6). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-034637
14. Burgette JM, Dahl ZT, Janice SY, Weyant RJ, McNeil DW, Foxman B, et al. Mothers’ Sources of Child Fluoride Information and Misinformation From Social Connections. JAMA Network Open. 2022; 5 (4). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6414
15. Samaranayake L, Porntaveetus T, Tsoi J, Tuygunov N. Facts and Fallacies of the Fluoride Controversy: A Contemporary Perspective. International Dental Journal. 2025; 75 (4). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2025.04.013
16. Krol DM, Whelan K, Section on Oral Health. Maintaining and Improving the Oral Health of Young Children. Pediatrics. 2023; 151 (1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-060417
17. Whelton HP, Spencer AJ, Do LG, Rugg-Gunn AJ. Fluoride Revolution and Dental Caries: Evolution of Policies for Global Use. Journal of Dental Research. 2019; 98 (8). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034519843495
18. Vasantavada PV, Sanderson R, Ells L, Zohoori FV. Web search engines reveal conflicting information about water fluoridation. British Dental Journal. 2022; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-3929-z
19. Sun Y, Zhang Y, Gwizdka J, Trace CB. Consumer Evaluation of the Quality of Online Health Information: Systematic Literature Review of Relevant Criteria and Indicators. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2019; 21 (5). Available from: https://doi.org/10.2196/12522
20. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical Studies Assessing the Quality of Health Information for Consumers on the World Wide Web. JAMA. 2002; 287 (20). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.20.2691
21. Alassaf MS, Bakkari A, Saleh J, Habeeb A, Aljuhani BF, Qazali AA, et al. An infodemiologic review of internet resources on dental hypersensitivity: A quality and readability assessment. PLOS ONE. 2025; 20 (1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312832
22. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, et al. Health Information on the Internet. JAMA. 2001; 285 (20). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.20.2612
23. Till C, Green R. Controversy: The evolving science of fluoride: when new evidence doesn’t conform with existing beliefs. Pediatric Research. 2021; 90 (5). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-0973-8
24. Chan HTH. SMOG Readability Formula: Your Tool for Clearer Health Communication. Center for Health Communication; c2025 [cited 2025 Aug 2]. Available from: https://hsph.harvard.edu/research/health-communication/resources/smog/
25. Ngo S, Asirvatham R, Baird GL, Sarraju A, Maron DJ, Rodriguez F. Readability and reliability of online patient education materials about statins. American Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2023; 16 Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpc.2023.100594
© 2026 Published by International Dental Educationists’ Association (IDEA). This is an open-access article under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Subscribe now for latest articles, news.
