How we research

Our source hierarchy

Not all sources are equal. When a claim on this site could affect a reader's treatment decision, we try to trace it to the strongest available evidence, in this order:

1. Systematic reviews & meta-analyses. Where several primary studies on a question (implant survival, prosthesis complications, bone loss patterns) have been pooled and critically appraised, that pooled evidence carries the most weight — it is less likely to be distorted by a single study's small sample or setting.
2. Peer-reviewed primary research. Individual clinical studies, cohort follow-ups and case series published in indexed dental and oral-implantology journals. We prefer studies with a stated follow-up period, a defined outcome measure (implant survival, prosthesis survival, or patient-reported outcome — these are not the same thing), and a reasonable sample size.
3. Recognised professional bodies. Guidance and position statements from bodies such as the British Dental Association, the General Dental Council, the NHS and the Oral Health Foundation. These sit below primary research in evidentiary weight but are valuable for patient-facing definitions, safety guidance and UK-specific context.
4. Official regulatory information. Statements from a national dental or health regulator about licensing, accreditation or a specific safety notice — used to establish facts about regulation itself, not as evidence for clinical outcomes.
5. Manufacturer information, for product-specific facts only. An implant or prosthetic manufacturer's own published specifications (material composition, a specific system's documented characteristics) are acceptable evidence for what that product is, but never for how well it performs — performance claims need an independent study.
6. Provider pricing, only for that provider's own pricing. When we state what a specific clinic charges, our source is that clinic's own published or quoted pricing, clearly attributed to it. We never use one provider's pricing as evidence for typical or average market pricing elsewhere.

How we handle dates and updates

Implant research, professional guidance and typical pricing all change over time, so every page that carries a numeric or clinical claim also carries a "last medically reviewed" date. When we materially revise a page — a changed figure, a new source, a corrected claim — we update that date. Minor copy edits (a clarified sentence, a fixed typo) do not necessarily trigger a new review date, but any change to a clinical figure does. Where a source itself carries a publication or "as of" date — such as the topdentalclinicsturkey.com ranking we cite elsewhere on this site — we reproduce that date alongside the figure, rather than presenting it as current indefinitely.

Why we avoid another clinic's marketing page as primary evidence

A clinic's own website is a legitimate source for facts about that clinic — its location, its team, its published pricing, its stated guarantee terms. It is not independent evidence for a general clinical claim, such as a typical implant survival rate or how common a given complication is, because a marketing page is written to persuade rather than to report methodology, sample size or follow-up period. Where we need evidence for a general clinical claim, we go to the sources in the hierarchy above — a systematic review, a peer-reviewed study, or professional-body guidance — even where a clinic's own page states something similar. If a clinic-published figure is the only available source for something patient-relevant, we say so explicitly and attribute it to that clinic, rather than presenting it as independently confirmed.

Who checks this against the sources

Once a page is drafted against these sources, a GDC-registered UK dentist on our review panel checks the clinical content for accuracy before publication — see our medical review policy and the named reviewers on our editorial team page. Our broader editorial principles, including how we handle competing evidence and disagreement between sources, are set out in our editorial policy. If you spot a source we have misread or an update we have missed, our corrections policy explains how to tell us.