How Clinical Team and Clinical Technology Are Scored

What the 17-point clinical team domain assesses

The framework treats the clinical team as the closest documentary proxy available for treatment capability. A facility does not perform a bone graft, a named clinician does.

Assessment starts with identifiability. A directory that names clinicians, states their qualifications and indicates their areas of practice can be checked against professional registries, which the evidence standards grade as E2 issuer-level evidence. A page that refers only to an unnamed expert team cannot be checked at all, and produces no verifiable claim to score.

Beyond identification, the domain considers whether specialist coverage matches the procedure mix on offer. A clinic promoting full-arch implant rehabilitation, orthodontics and endodontics is assessed against whether clinicians with those competencies are actually presented. It also considers depth of coverage, because a single named clinician supporting a large advertised procedure range carries a different documentary profile than a broad specialist roster.

Individual clinician credentials are stored separately from institutional certification. A clinic accreditation says nothing about a specific dentist's qualifications, and a dentist's specialist registration says nothing about the facility. The framework never lets one stand in for the other.

What the 15-point technology domain assesses

The technology domain asks a narrower question than the language around dental marketing usually suggests. It is not scoring whether equipment is new or impressive. It is scoring whether capability claims are specific enough to be cross-checked and consistent enough to be relied upon.

Named implant systems are the clearest example. A disclosed system such as Straumann, Nobel Biocare or MegaGen creates a checkable claim, because the manufacturer maintains its own records and the system has published documentation. A generic reference to "premium European implants" creates nothing checkable, and cannot carry the same weight regardless of what is actually placed in the operating room.

The same logic applies to imaging and workflow. Disclosed CBCT imaging, digital planning, guided implant surgery and CAD/CAM production are treated as specific capability statements. Laboratory arrangements matter here too, because whether prosthetic work is produced in house or outsourced affects turnaround, revision handling and accountability, and the arrangement is often left undisclosed.

Materials transparency completes the domain. A clinic that names the implant system, the abutment type and the restorative material provides a documentary trail that survives a change of staff or a change of ownership.

What the current domain scores show

The published figures for the 24 August 2026 snapshot, framework v1.0, show that these two domains rank clinics in almost opposite orders.

Clinical team scores run: Istanbul Dental Center 17.0, Dentakay 16.5, International Plus 16.0, DentSpa 16.0, Vera Smile 13.0, Omer Istanbul 12.5. Technology scores run: Vera Smile 14.5, International Plus 14.0, DentSpa 13.0, Dentakay 12.5, Istanbul Dental Center 11.5, Omer Istanbul 11.0.

Istanbul Dental Center holds the domain maximum of 17.0 for clinical team, reflecting four named professors and a presented specialist roster, while ranking fifth overall at 78.5 of 100. Vera Smile holds the highest technology score at 14.5 but sits sixth of ten on clinical team at 13.0. International Plus, the publisher-affiliated clinic that currently ranks first, leads neither domain; it records 16.0 and 14.0 respectively, and its overall position rests on the sum of eight domains rather than on any single one.

This is the intended behaviour of a weighted multi-domain model. A domain maximum is a statement about one category of published evidence, not a ranking claim, and no domain is large enough to decide the order by itself.

What earns points and what does not

Limitations of this assessment

These domains score published evidence about people and equipment. They do not score clinical performance, and the difference matters.

A named clinician with a verifiable registry entry is documented, not evaluated. This framework does not observe treatment, review case records, audit complication rates or assess surgical technique, and no research score should be read as a statement about any individual clinician's results. Disclosed technology carries the same caveat: an imaging system in a building says nothing about how well it is used, and a named implant system says nothing about placement quality or case selection.

The framework also carries a documentation bias that is sharpest here. Clinics that publish detailed clinician directories and explicit system disclosures score above clinics with equivalent staff and equipment but thinner public pages. Multi-location brands add a further complication, because equipment and staffing can differ between sites operating under one name, and facility-level assessment can only be as precise as the facility-level evidence available.

Differences of 0.5 or 1.0 points inside a domain reflect documentation judgements and should not be treated as measurable quality gaps. Scores are snapshots that change when staff move, systems are replaced or evidence is updated. Nothing here is medical advice, a treatment recommendation, a success rate or an outcome guarantee.

Frequently asked questions