Highlights overall poor compliance with both GDC guidance and ASA-CAP regulations on advertising.Provides specifically created easy-to-follow checklists to cross-check against practice websites and social media accounts enabling GDC and ASA advertising compliance.

Introduction/Objectives As a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, primary care specialist orthodontic practices have been limited to providing emergency treatment only. This has resulted in a cessation of normal face-to-face services and patient advice can only be offered by remote means. A service evaluation was carried out to assess the quality of information published on websites and social media pages of specialist orthodontic practices in London, against General Dental Council guidance on communication and advertising and the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) COVID-19 specific guidance for orthodontics in primary care in relation to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study also aimed to provide a gold standard template for orthodontic practices to aid in the delivery of information on a digital platform during the current (COVID-19) pandemic and future possible spikes. Materials and methods All orthodontic practices providing care in the London region were identified from a CQC Database and subsequently checked against predetermined criteria based on the BOS guidance and the GDC Guidance on Ethical Advertising. Results Of the 83 orthodontic practices sampled; 78 had a website of which 18 (23.1%) were non-compliant with GDC guidance. Facebook pages were identified for 62 orthodontic practices. 17 practices did not provide any update in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was more frequently carried out on practice websites (78.2%) compared to Facebook pages (33.9%). A number of practices were identified as having novel strategies to manage communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Variation was observed in information published by practices despite the regularly updated, blanket information provided by the BOS. Communication may have been delivered by a different means during the pandemic which this study did not account for. In addition, the sampling method may not have identified all practices within the London region, however the sample size seems appropriate to draw meaningful conclusions. The checklist created should help improve the delivery of future information.

Aims and objectives To develop a greater understanding of how dental practices in the UK utilise and promote patient reviews and testimonials. To compare and contrast the star ratings, levels of engagement and levels of identifiability by comparing those placed by patients on social media, review websites and search engines, to those placed on providers' own websites. To provide recommendations for future advertising guidance.Materials and methods All practices providing dental services in North East England and Cumbria were identified from the Care Quality Commission database. A web-based Google search for the respective dental practice websites, NHS listings, Facebook pages and Google results page listings was performed. The presence or absence of patient testimonials and reviews was recorded, alongside the total number of testimonials/reviews and the number of non-identifiable testimonials/reviews. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS Statistics.Results Of the 401 practice websites, 19.7% (n = 79) contained at least one graded review, while 40.9% (n = 158) of the 386 NHS listings; 87.2% (n = 272) of the 343 Facebook pages; and 94.4% (n = 442) of the 468 Google listings also contained at least one graded review. All of the 1,798 testimonials observed on practice websites were positive in their sentiment. Further, 22 practices utilised video testimonials. Each of the online review locations showed overall mean scores above 4.5 out of 5 stars.Conclusions Dental practice websites, the NHS website, Facebook and Google utilise testimonials and reviews in distinct and diverse ways. Unlike other jurisdictions around the world, the UK does not have guidance in this area. Electronic word of mouth is often replete with bias, and as such, patients need to be encouraged to seek out multiple sources before decision-making. Facebook and Google may be perceived to be more 'trustworthy' sources of information as they appear less curated and less susceptible to manipulation than practice websites, which the public may feel gives greater credence to the information they provide. In order to achieve the highest standards of integrity and honesty, advertising guidance surrounding reviews and testimonials would benefit from future revision.