Methodology · Version 1.1 · Effective 13 July 2026
How we rank dental clinics
We rank clinics on the observed burden of evidence-supported complaints and on what a clinic can verifiably show — not on the volume of praise or marketing. Complaints are the single largest factor; a clinic with no observable complaints does not automatically receive a high score — low visibility cannot be mistaken for low risk.
We are an independent, evidence-based clinic-assessment platform. We are not a regulator, we do not inspect clinics, and our editorial score is not a clinical success rate, an inspection result, a regulatory approval or a guarantee of outcome. No clinic pays for placement or ranking.
The score, out of 100
Final = max(0, Complaint & safety (35) + seven transparency categories (65) − Integrity penalties)Digital discoverability (search / AI visibility) is reported separately and is not part of the score — it measures SEO, not safety or quality. A disqualifying integrity finding replaces the number with "Not ranked — integrity disqualification".
What never raises a score
- Five-star review count on its own0
- Raw (unadjusted) star average0
- Instagram / TikTok / YouTube followers0
- LinkedIn presence0
- Influencer endorsements0
- Paid advertising volume0
- Testimonial videos0
- Awards the clinic displays0
- Website visual design0
- Free hotel or transfer packages0
Marketing, social following, ad-spend and raw star averages buy nothing. Review signals feed a small, Bayesian-adjusted Reputation & reviews category (10 of 100) — so a handful of five-star reviews can't outweigh a documented complaint record — and review volume also affects the separate Confidence Grade (how much we knew), never the complaint score.
Before scoring: eligibility
A clinic is only ranked if it has a verifiable legal facility identity and physical address, at least one named treating dentist with a verifiable registration, a review window of at least 24 months, at least two independent sources, at least 25 usable text records after de-duplication, a conflict-of-interest screening, and an opportunity to respond.
Listed, not ranked — insufficient evidence coverage
Clinics that fall short still receive a factual profile, but no rank number and no "best clinic" label. "0 complaints found" never earns a top score on its own — a small or unreviewed clinic is not treated as safe.
The complaint record — the largest category (35 of 100)
The unit we score is a patient incident, not a review. The same event on Google, Trustpilot and elsewhere is merged into one incident — cross-platform corroboration raises credibility, not the count. Every incident runs through seven factors:
Incident penalty = Severity × Credibility × Recency × Attribution × Resolution × Pattern × CategorySeverity base points
| S0 | Invalid / non-qualifying |
|---|---|
| S1 | Minor service or communication |
| S2 | Moderate clinical / contractual / financial |
| S3 | Serious clinical / functional / financial |
| S4 | Critical safety / identity / integrity |
- S0 Invalid / non-qualifying
- S1 Minor service or communication
- S2 Moderate clinical / contractual / financial
- S3 Serious clinical / functional / financial
- S4 Critical safety / identity / integrity
Credibility × factor
| Q0 | ×Spam / unrelated / contradicted |
|---|---|
| Q1 | ×General, little detail |
| Q2 | ×Detailed first-person account |
| Q3 | ×Corroborated by reply / chronology |
| Q4 | ×Documents / independent / official |
- Q0 Spam / unrelated / contradicted
- Q1 General, little detail
- Q2 Detailed first-person account
- Q3 Corroborated by reply / chronology
- Q4 Documents / independent / official
Recency ×
Critical (S4) never below ×0.50.
Resolution ×
Good aftercare cuts, never erases. S3 ≥ 0.75, S4 ≥ 0.85.
Attribution ×
Evidence link to the clinic — not a diagnosis.
Repeated pattern × (24m)
Independent incidents only.
Category multiplier
- CL-SClinical safety×1.35
- IDIdentity & representation×1.30
- CL-QClinical quality×1.20
- ACAftercare & continuity×1.15
- HYHygiene & environment×1.15
- CNConsent & communication×1.00
- FIFinancial & contractual×1.00
- PRPrivacy & patient rights×0.90
- MKMarketing & claims×0.80
- LGLogistics & admin×0.50
An incident with several issues counts once: highest issue + 35% of the rest, capped at 1.5× the highest. The component is then:
Complaint Points = max(0, 60 − total incident penalties)This 0–60 complaint score is then scaled to the 35-point Complaint & Safety category — the single largest category in the composite. Positive-review volume never adds complaint points and is never used to dilute complaints. Size and visibility are handled by eligibility and the Confidence Grade — not by cancelling complaints with praise.
The other 65 points — seven transparency categories
Information transparency
Whether basic facts are publicly verifiable: a working website (2) · dentists named (3) · their specialisations listed (2) · a published service list (3) · clear contact details (2) · an English-language site (2) · address and map published (1).
Licensing & credentials
Verification, not disclosure: a healthcare facility operating licence checkable against the competent authority (5) · an International Health Tourism authorisation where the clinic markets to international patients (3, and distinct from the operating licence) · the treating dentists’ professional registrations and claimed specialities independently verifiable (4). Not publishing a licence number does not by itself imply a clinic is unlicensed — we score verifiability, and a clinic-published certificate image is not "independently verified".
Price transparency
Whether patients can estimate costs before travelling: prices or price ranges published (4) · plus specific implant (2), crown (2) and consultation (2) prices. Published ranges count; exact prices are not required. Quote-only / "message us for a price" scores zero.
Reputation & reviews
Public review signals, treated cautiously: a Bayesian-adjusted rating (prior mean 4.0, prior weight 25) so a 5.0 from a handful of reviews does not outrank a 4.8 from hundreds (4) · review authenticity and platform diversity (2) · recency and continuity (2) · substantive responses to reviews (2). Individual incidents already counted in Complaint & Safety are not deducted again here — this category captures the broader review pattern, not raw star averages.
Clinical capability & infrastructure
Documented capability, not a quality claim: on-site dental imaging / CBCT (3) · surgical treatment capability (2) · a documented sterilisation / hygiene protocol (1.5) · emergency-response arrangements (1.5). Simply offering a service (e.g. orthodontics) is not itself a quality signal.
Aftercare & patient documentation
Written English aftercare instructions (2) · a complete patient-record / documentation handover — treatment summary, invoice, implant passport, radiographs, prescription (2) · and a defined cross-border complication / remedy procedure (1).
Communication & access
How easily an English-speaking international patient can reach the clinic: English spoken (2) · a usable messaging / WhatsApp channel (1.5) · a pre-visit online consultation (1) · international-patient coordination (0.5).
Confidence Grade & evidence
Confidence Grade separate from the score
It reflects how much evidence we had — not clinic quality.
| Source diversity | 25 |
|---|---|
| Time coverage | 20 |
| Usable record volume | 20 |
| Evidence completeness | 20 |
| Reviewer quality & agreement | 15 |
A and B are rankable; C is provisional (excluded from top lists); D is not ranked. A high score with Confidence C or D is never presented as top-ranked.
Evidence grade per claim
- AOfficially verified — government / professional registry / court
- BIndependently verified — university, peer-reviewed, accreditation
- CDocument reviewed — clinic document seen, not confirmed externally
- DSelf-reported — stated by the clinic
- EPublic-source indication — review platform / website / social
- XContradicted by other reliable evidence
- UUnknown — insufficient information
"Not found" does not mean "does not exist". "Clinic-supplied" does not mean "independently verified".
Worked example
A fictional clinic with three incidents, calculated end to end.
This worked example shows how the Complaint & Safety component is computed (48.9/60, scaled to 28.5/35 — the largest single category). A clinic's composite adds the seven transparency categories (information, licensing, price, reputation, clinical capability, aftercare and communication — up to 65 more), each scored from public sources on its live scorecard. Where an incident has several issues, the incident penalty is the highest issue plus 35% of each other issue’s penalty, capped at 1.5× the highest. Every clinic profile publishes: composite score · Confidence Grade · qualified / serious / critical / unresolved complaint counts · last-reviewed date · methodology v1.1.
Integrity, review & honesty
- Integrity penalties (cap −20; some findings disqualify). Falsified documents or clinician identity, false specialty claims, review manipulation, undisclosed clinician substitution, or paying to remove complaints — applied only on strong evidence. The same underlying conduct is not penalised twice unless it creates separately identifiable patient harm and methodology-integrity harm. A disqualifying finding replaces the score with "Not ranked — integrity disqualification".
- Repeated-pattern multiplier. Applies only to independent incidents with materially similar conduct or outcomes within the same 24-month period. Unrelated incidents are not grouped simply because they concern the same clinic.
- Ownership, funding & conflicts of interest. This register is operated by ITEXPERT24 LTD (United Kingdom). We take no payment from any clinic for ranking or placement and do not sell patient leads. A reviewer with any ownership, consultancy, referral, family or other material relationship to a clinic is recused from assessing it; where any relevant relationship exists it is disclosed on that clinic's profile, an independent reviewer is assigned, and the calculation remains fully reproducible.
- Two-reviewer process. Serious (S3/S4) incidents are independently classified by two reviewers, with a third adjudicating disagreement; clinical classifications are reviewed by a GDC-registered UK dentist from our panel.
- Careful language. We never call a clinic "fraudulent", "negligent" or "unsafe" unless a competent authority or court has so found — we write "the patient reported…", "the evidence indicates…", "we could not independently verify…".
- No absolutes. We do not use "best", "most trusted" or "guaranteed". Our top clinic is "the highest editorial score in our assessment, given the available evidence — not objectively the best clinic in Turkey".
- Right of reply, corrections, reproducibility. Clinics may respond and appeal but cannot buy a score or remove a complaint; corrections are logged and old scores kept; the weights and every calculation are published so anyone can recompute a score.
This ranking assesses suitability and transparency for international, English-speaking dental patients researching treatment in Turkey; an excellent local-only clinic may score lower on international-patient criteria such as an English-language site. The editorial score is an evidence-based comparative assessment — not medical or legal advice, a regulatory decision, a clinical inspection or a guarantee. Public complaints are incomplete and platforms imperfect; a score is time-limited and predicts no individual outcome; missing evidence is reported as "not verified", never as an accusation. Always verify a clinic's authorisation and credentials, and obtain an individual clinical examination, before deciding. Methodology v1.1 · effective 13 July 2026.