Patient Reviews and Consultation Outcomes

Sarah received a quote for 10 upper veneers and 4 lower crowns from a clinic in Istanbul at £4,800. The review identified that 4 of the upper teeth included in the veneer plan showed no aesthetic indication for treatment in the submitted photographs. They were healthy, well-aligned teeth being prepared for veneers purely to increase the number of units in the quote. The revised plan covered 6 veneers, which addressed the teeth actually visible in her smile. She proceeded with the modified scope, avoided irreversible preparation of 4 sound teeth, and reduced her total cost by approximately £1,600.

Marcus had been quoted for All-on-4 on the lower jaw by two Istanbul clinics, both describing the procedure as completable in a single 5-day trip. The review of his panoramic X-ray showed significant bone resorption in the posterior mandible, with the inferior alveolar nerve sitting in a position that would require a nerve repositioning procedure before standard implant placement was possible. Neither clinic had flagged this. The review recommended obtaining a CBCT and consulting a maxillofacial surgeon before proceeding. Marcus avoided what could have been a serious complication from a procedure planned without adequate imaging.

Fiona had been quoted for 20 zirconia crowns across the full arch by a clinic in Antalya for €6,800. The review found that 8 of the posterior teeth included in the plan showed no restorative indication in the X-rays — no decay, no existing failing restorations, structurally intact. The clinical justification offered was aesthetic uniformity. The review recommended a conservative approach covering only the anterior teeth with genuine aesthetic concerns (8 upper units), leaving the posterior teeth untouched. The revised plan cost approximately €2,800 for the indicated work only — saving €4,000 and avoiding permanent removal of tooth structure from 12 healthy teeth.

David needed a single implant in the upper left quadrant. The clinic's treatment plan also included 3 adjacent crowns described as necessary to stabilise the bite. The review found the adjacent teeth were intact with no caries and no existing failing restorations — the crowns were not clinically indicated. The review also identified that the implant brand listed was described only as "premium titanium implant" with no manufacturer named. After receiving the review, David asked the clinic to name the brand. They named a manufacturer he could not verify as a recognised implant company. He asked for Straumann instead. The clinic agreed. He saved approximately AUD $3,200 by declining the unindicated crowns.

Anneke was considering composite veneers on 8 upper teeth from a clinic in Izmir at €1,200 total. The review confirmed the treatment scope was appropriate and the price was reasonable. The primary finding was that the clinic's written consent form contained no mention of composite longevity (typically 3–5 years before replacement is needed) or maintenance requirements. The review provided Anneke with a list of questions about the composite material brand, polishing protocol, and replacement cost per tooth. She proceeded with the treatment, having negotiated a clear written maintenance schedule and a fixed per-tooth price for future replacements.

James had All-on-6 placed in Istanbul 14 months before contacting the service. He was experiencing persistent pain around two upper-right implants. The review of his post-treatment X-rays identified peri-implant bone loss around both symptomatic implants, consistent with early peri-implantitis, likely related to excess cement remaining below the gum line at placement — a known complication of cement-retained prosthetics. The review provided a written report that James's Canadian dentist used as a baseline to plan debridement and monitoring, and which James is using as part of a complaint to the Turkish Dental Association.