Corrections policy

Why this page exists

This site publishes clinical information — about All-on-4 and All-on-6 candidacy, procedure, evidence and cost — that can influence a real treatment decision. Errors happen: a source gets misread, a figure goes out of date, a clinic changes its published pricing, or a sentence is written in a way that overstates what the evidence actually shows. We would rather a reader or a dental professional flag that to us than leave it uncorrected, so this page sets out exactly how to do that and what you can expect once you do.

Who can request a correction

Anyone can. We particularly welcome corrections from readers who have been through All-on-4 or All-on-6 treatment themselves, from dentists and other dental professionals, and from any clinic named on this site — including our disclosed clinical partner, Taki Dent — who spots a factual error in how it, or a competitor, is described.

How to request a correction

Email IDAOPS CONSULTING LTD at [email protected] with the subject line "Correction request", including: the page URL, the specific sentence or figure you believe is wrong, and — where possible — a source that supports the correction (a published study, a professional-body statement, a register entry, or documentary evidence such as a certificate number or your own published pricing). A correction request with a stated source is easier for us to verify quickly than a general objection to how a topic is framed.

How we handle a correction request

We check the request against the source hierarchy set out in our how we research page: a systematic review or peer-reviewed study outranks a single clinic's own claim, and a named, checkable source outranks an unsupported assertion either way. Where the evidence supports the correction, we update the page, note the change in the page's revision history where one is shown, and update its "last medically reviewed" or "last updated" date. Where a claim involves a clinical judgement rather than a simple factual error, we route it to a GDC-registered UK dentist on our review panel for a clinical read before we change anything. We aim to acknowledge correction requests within a reasonable time and to resolve straightforward factual errors promptly; requests that need clinical review or additional source-checking may take longer.

What we commit to

• We fix factual errors we can verify. A wrong statistic, an outdated price, an incorrect register number or an inaccurate description of a procedure step gets corrected, not just noted.
• We date substantive updates. Any change to a clinical claim, a figure, or a comparative statement updates the visible "last medically reviewed" or "last updated" date on that page, so a returning reader can see the content has moved.
• We do not quietly rewrite disputed claims. Where a correction changes a conclusion rather than a typo, we are willing to explain, on request, what changed and why.
• Disagreement is not automatically an error. Where genuine clinical uncertainty exists — for example, where studies on implant survival differ by follow-up period or definition — we aim to reflect that uncertainty rather than pick a side to please any single requester, including our own disclosed clinical partner.

Related pages

For how content is produced and reviewed before publication, see our editorial policy. For what "clinically reviewed" means and its limits, see our medical review policy. For how we source clinical claims in the first place, see how we research. For our commercial relationship with Taki Dent, see our advertising disclosure.