Reviews of Dental Center Turkey.

Hi Nicole, Thank you so much for your wonderful and detailed review. We are delighted to hear that your experience with our team, from reception through to the clinical staff, was such a positive one, and we truly appreciate your kind mention of everyone who helped make your visits comfortable. It is especially meaningful to know that your journey with us began through your mother’s experience and that you felt confident choosing us for your own treatment. We are very pleased to hear that Dr. Muhsin Özdemir made your implant procedure comfortable and that your recovery went smoothly. We look forward to welcoming you back for the next stage of your implant treatment and are grateful for your trust and strong recommendation 😊💫. Kind regards.

Hi Gary, Thank you for sharing your experience. We believe it is important to clarify the clinical timeline and treatment context so prospective patients can have a clear and accurate understanding. Following your initial treatment, started in 2023 and as yet incomplete, you contacted us in December 2024 reporting swelling. At that time, no clinical issues could be identified on the X-rays taken at our clinic, and supportive home care was advised. We did not receive any further updates at that stage. No further contact was received until 7 January 2026, more than a year later, when you reported slight movement associated with the first implant. We immediately requested visual confirmation and arranged for updated panoramic imaging so the case could be reviewed by our oral surgery team. It is important to note that your implant treatment plan had not yet been completed and that your last visit to our clinic was in June 2024. A treatment gap of approximately 18 months between implant stages is highly unusual and not clinically recommended, as implant stability and surrounding bone conditions can change significantly over time. Updated imaging was therefore essential. Following review of the panoramic X-ray taken on 16 January 2026, one implant showed radiolucency consistent with lack of integration. This is a recognised biological complication of dental implant treatment and does not indicate a material defect or failure of clinical standards. The second implant appeared acceptable radiographically but requires in-person clinical examination to determine its exact condition. With regard to aftercare, we must clarify that in-clinic assessment was repeatedly advised, and still is. For ethical and medical reasons, implant evaluation and any remedial treatment can only be safely and responsibly carried out following physical examination. Remote diagnosis or treatment is not clinically appropriate. As a clinic based in Turkey, we do not operate treatment centres in the UK. This is an inherent aspect of international dental care and is clearly explained prior to treatment. The cost advantages associated with treatment abroad are directly linked to this model, equivalent treatment provided by clinics of a similar standard in the UK would typically be significantly more expensive. As outlined in our publicly available guarantee terms, implant failure resulting from biological factors such as bone response or lack of integration is beyond the control of the clinic and is not covered by the guarantee. In such cases, further treatment or replacement is provided at standard treatment costs. While we acknowledge the frustration that complications can cause, we remain available to assess and discuss appropriate options should you wish to return for in-clinic evaluation in line with standard dental protocols. Kind regards.

We are sorry that this individual feels distressed by her experience. Prolonged dental pain is understandably upsetting, and we recognise how challenging that can be for any patient. However, the account presented here omits important and material clinical context. Prior to and during treatment, clinical records documented concerns relating to oral hygiene and early periodontal compromise. These factors are clinically significant, as they materially increase the risk of gum recession, sensitivity, and complications around restorations, regardless of where treatment is performed. Following completion of treatment, the patient elected to undergo further dental care outside our clinic, including multiple root canal procedures. When she later returned to us for assessment, clinical examination and imaging showed that several of those treatments were technically compromised, with canals inadequately treated or structurally unsound and requiring retreatment. Such deficiencies are a well-recognised cause of persistent pain and infection and are independent of the original restorative work. Once third-party interventions of this nature have taken place, continuity of care is broken and the original provider cannot control outcomes or assume responsibility for subsequent complications. Nevertheless, despite the fact that external treatment contractually voided the original guarantee, the patient was invited back, assessed in person, and provided with further remedial treatment without charge as a goodwill gesture, including addressing issues arising from that third-party endodontic work. It is also relevant to note that had the patient returned directly to the clinic when symptoms first arose, rather than pursuing treatment elsewhere, the clinical pathway and likely outcome would have been very different. Early review within the original treatment framework is precisely how such complications are usually identified and managed. We categorically reject the suggestion that patient wellbeing was disregarded or that decisions were financially motivated. The record includes a multitude of emails, messages, and clinical documentation evidencing continuous engagement and repeated efforts to assist the patient. Until the treatment relationship was concluded by mutual agreement, communication remained open and active, with in-person reviews and extensive care provided without cost, even after pre-existing periodontal factors and third-party interventions had significantly complicated the clinical picture. If financial motivation were the driving factor alleged, the actions taken would make no sense. The clinic provided extensive and time-intensive treatment, including complex re-root canal procedures carried out by a fully qualified endodontist, as well as the replacement of several high-quality restorations, all without charge, at a point when the treatment guarantee had already been voided. The total value of this care amounted to several thousand euros and, under normal circumstances, would have been chargeable. Equally, the clinic declined to pursue further high-cost elective treatment, such as implants, and instead brought the treatment relationship to a close by mutual agreement. These decisions are not consistent with profit-driven conduct, but with an effort to act responsibly and proportionately in a complex clinical situation. Although the patient has chosen to place selected correspondence and records into the public domain, we will not respond in kind by publishing full clinical records or private communications. To do so would be inappropriate, potentially embarrassing for the patient, and inconsistent with professional standards. Our decision not to disclose further detail reflects ethical restraint and respect for the individual involved, not any absence of evidence, review, or engagement. As always, we remain committed to ethical practice, transparency, and responsible patient care, while also being clear about clinical limitations, continuity of care, and professional boundaries.

Hi Jeana, Thank you so much for your lovely feedback. We are very happy to hear that everything, from your hotel to your transport, was organised smoothly and helped you feel relaxed throughout your stay. It is completely normal to feel a bit swollen and tender only two days after treatment, but we are delighted that you are already happy with the end result of your treatment. Thank you for putting your trust in our team. Wishing you a smooth and comfortable recovery 😊✨. Kind regards.

Hi Bob, Thank you so much for sharing your wonderful feedback. We are delighted to hear that your experience reflected the honesty, integrity, and professionalism we aim to provide every patient. It is great to know that your patient coordinator Burak was able to guide you clearly through your options and help you choose the most suitable and cost-effective treatment plan. We are also pleased that Dt. Buse made your first stage of implant treatment comfortable and successful, and that you were happy with your temporary dentures and whitening trays. We truly appreciate your trust in our team and look forward to welcoming you back for the final fitting of your implants. Thank you again for your kind words and confidence in Dental Centre Turkey 🦷✨. Kind regards.

Hi James, Thank you so much for your amazing review. We are delighted to hear that your experience at DCT Klinik in Antalya was exceptional from start to finish. It is wonderful to know that your patient coordinator Deniz, your Cosmetic Dentist Batuhan, and the whole team made you feel comfortable and supported throughout your treatment. We are so glad that you love your new smile and can’t wait to see you again on your next visit 🦷✨. Kind regards.

Dear Zeke, Thank you so much for your kind and detailed review. … More

Hi Cameron, Thank you so much for your kind words. We are so delighted to hear you were … More

Hi Elvis, Thank you for your feedback however, we believe there may be some confusion, as … More

Hi Tracey, Thank you so much for your kind feedback. We are so happy to hear that Dt … More