Editorial Policy: How OralRadar Researches and Reviews

Our editorial standards

OralRadar exists for one reason: to help you spend money well on oral-health supplements, without the hype. I buy the products I cover with my own money and test them myself. That hands-on program is still rolling out, so where I haven’t finished a test I say so plainly, and the pick comes from the strain and ingredient research instead. When the evidence for a claim is thin, I tell you it’s thin. That’s the whole standard, and every rule below is just me spelling out how I keep it.

Who writes this, and who stands behind it

I’m Eduardo Silva, the founder and product tester behind this site. I’m not a dentist, a hygienist, or any kind of medical professional, and I never pretend to be. You can read the fuller story on the about page.

So why trust a review written by someone without a clinical badge? Because the badge was never the point. What stands behind every page here is three things you can check yourself: the research I cite (linked so you can read it), the products I actually buy and test, and a habit of saying when something is unproven. That trade, real sources plus honest testing in place of a credential, is the deal I’m offering you. If I can’t back a claim, I don’t make it.

How we research and cite the evidence

Every health claim on this site is tied to a real study you can open and read. I don’t write “studies show” and leave it there.

When I look into an ingredient or a strain, I work down a ladder of evidence, strongest first:

• Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews. A systematic review uses predefined methods to find, assess, and synthesize the relevant studies on a question. It does not always combine their results statistically. A meta-analysis is the statistical pooling step and may be included when the studies are similar enough. Cochrane reviews are a useful source because their methods and inclusion decisions are reported for readers to inspect.
• Randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An RCT splits people into groups by chance, gives one the real product and one a dummy, then compares them. I pull these from PubMed, the free public library of medical research run by the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
• Guideline bodies. For the settled basics, I lean on groups like the American Dental Association (ADA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including its dental branch, the NIDCR.

I link the source and note its date, but newer does not automatically mean stronger. Study design, sample size, risk of bias, relevance to the product and reader, consistency with other findings, and recency all matter. When a claim rests on a single small study, or one paid for by the company selling the product, I say that out loud. “Promising” and “proven” are not the same word, and I don’t swap one for the other.

I also read the actual study, not just its summary. In health writing, a citation that doesn’t say what the page claims is worse than no citation at all.

How we word health claims

The verb has to match the evidence. If a trial shows a modest effect, I’ll write that an ingredient or product “may help support” the measured outcome, and no stronger. The FDA separates health claims, nutrient-content claims, and structure/function claims, with different requirements for each. A dietary supplement may make a permitted structure/function claim about normal body structure or function when the legal conditions are met. It cannot be marketed as diagnosing, treating, curing, or preventing a disease unless it meets the rules that apply to drugs. My wording stays at or below both the evidence and that regulatory boundary.

And every health topic on this site ends the same way: see a dentist or periodontist (a gum specialist). A supplement is at most a studied add-on. Professional cleaning and care is the base, and nothing here replaces it.

How we test the products

My testing follows one fixed protocol so every product gets the same fair shake. You can read the full method on how we test: it sets a daily dose and a fixed run, with the same observations each time.

Being straight with you, that hands-on program is still being built out. Where I’ve run a real test, you’ll see my dated notes. Where I haven’t yet, I say the pick rests on the research so far, and I don’t invent a result. You won’t find a fake star rating, a made-up “90-day result,” or a product photo for a test that didn’t happen.

Editorial independence from the brands we review

Here is exactly how money works around here, split into the two questions that matter.

How we make money. OralRadar is free to read because it’s reader-supported. When you buy through one of my links, I may earn a ClickBank commission at no extra cost to you. I’m an independent reviewer, not the seller. ClickBank and the vendor handle billing as well as orders and refunds.

How we decide. The commission never changes a ranking, a verdict, or which product I recommend. Picks are earned by test results and cited evidence, with the real downsides left in. I don’t accept free or gifted product, samples, or paid placement in exchange for a kinder review, and no vendor gets to preview, edit, or approve what I publish. The only relationship is the standard ClickBank affiliate program that’s open to anyone.

Which products get covered comes down to what’s actually being sold and searched for in oral-health supplements, not who pays the most. The short money disclosure sits next to every buy button, not only on this page, and the full detail lives on the affiliate disclosure page.

How we use AI, and how we don’t

I’ll be plain about this, since a lot of sites won’t. AI may help me draft, outline, and sift through research, but I verify every published claim against the cited source myself, and my opinions and any hands-on notes are my own. Where an image is AI-generated or illustrative, I label it as such. A genuine product-test photo appears only once I’ve actually run that test. AI is a tool I use in the background; it doesn’t get the final say on anything you read here.

Corrections: tell us when we’re wrong

If something on this site is wrong, I want to fix it, and I want to hear from you. Email me or use the contact page, and I’ll look into it quickly. When a substantive fact changes, I add a short dated note saying what was corrected, so the record is honest about having changed. This is the real corrections process for the whole site, not a slogan about striving for accuracy.

How often we update, and what our dates mean

Two dates appear on these pages, and each means exactly what it says. “Published” is when a page first went live. “Last updated” is the last time I actually changed the content. You won’t see a “medically reviewed” date, because there is no medical reviewer here, and faking one would be dishonest.

I re-check pages when new research lands, when a formula or an offer changes, or when a reader flags something. Call it a research-watch habit, not a “Medical Integrity team,” because it’s me doing the checking. I don’t bump a date to look fresh without a real edit behind it.

Information, not medical advice

Everything here is educational. It is not medical advice, a diagnosis, or a treatment plan, and it can’t be, because I’m not your clinician and I’ve never examined you. Talk to a dentist or periodontist before you start a supplement or change your routine, especially if you’re pregnant, nursing, or managing a health condition.

If you have a dental emergency, a knocked-out tooth, heavy swelling, or bleeding you can’t stop, that’s same-day professional care, not something a supplement addresses. The full legal terms for using this site are on the terms page.

Feedback and contact

I read what readers send. Questions, corrections, and suggestions all shape what gets fixed and what gets updated next, so your note genuinely feeds back into the site. Reach me through the contact page. If you share your email or any personal detail there, our privacy page explains what happens to it.