# Uncovering a pseudoscience: an analysis of ‘biological dentistry’ Instagram posts

**Authors:** Ana Maria Jucá, Olivia Santana Jorge, Yasmin Rosalin Moreira, Matheus Lotto, Tamires Sá Menezes, Thiago Cruvinel

PMC · DOI: 10.2340/aos.v83.40486 · Acta Odontologica Scandinavica · 2024-04-24

## TL;DR

This study examines Instagram posts about 'Biological Dentistry', finding that many contain misinformation spread by health professionals with financial motives.

## Contribution

The study identifies the role of health-related authors and financial motivation in spreading misinformation about 'Biological Dentistry' on Instagram.

## Key findings

- 58.4% of posts were from health-related authors, and 68.2% contained misinformation.
- Financially motivated posts were more likely to contain misinformation (OR = 2.12).
- Non-health-related authors had higher engagement (OR = 1.98).

## Abstract

This infodemiology study aimed to analyze characteristics of English-language Instagram posts on ‘Biological Dentistry’.

Using 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.

Over 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.

Misinformation 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.

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** toxicity (MESH:D064420), influenza (MESH:D007251), COVID-19 (MESH:D000086382), estrogenic (MESH:D056828), cancer (MESH:D009369)
- **Chemicals:** essential oils (MESH:D009822), heavy metals (MESH:D019216), mercury (MESH:D008628), fluoride (MESH:D005459), Bis-GMA (MESH:D017438)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11302399/full.md

## Figures

3 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11302399/full.md

## References

58 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11302399/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11302399