Patient education is only as honest as the process behind it. This page describes how we research, write, and review every article on this site, and how we decide what is settled science, what is contested, and what is marketing.
Source hierarchy
- Tier 1 — Consensus and systematic reviews. ITI consensus, EFP/AAP joint workshops, Cochrane reviews, ADA evidence-based guidelines.
- Tier 2 — Peer-reviewed primary literature. Randomized trials and large prospective cohorts in indexed journals (Clinical Oral Implants Research, Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, IJOMI).
- Tier 3 — Professional society practice parameters. AAOMS, ACP, AAID, AAOP.
- Tier 4 — Regulatory and public-health sources. FDA device data, CDC infection-control standards.
- Tier 5 — Expert clinical opinion. Used only when higher tiers are silent and clearly labeled as opinion.
We avoid citing manufacturer-sponsored white papers, clinic blogs, or unreviewed social-media content as primary sources.
What we will not say
- That any procedure is guaranteed to succeed.
- That any specific brand of implant or veneer is universally best.
- That any clinic, surgeon, or treatment center is the right choice for a given patient.
- That a price is “too high” or “too low” without context.
Review process
- Outline is built from the source hierarchy above.
- Draft is written in plain language with clinical accuracy preserved.
- A licensed dental professional reviews each article before publication.
- Articles are re-reviewed at least every 18 months or when new consensus statements are released.
Conflicts of interest
We do not accept payment from dental practices, implant manufacturers, financing companies, or referral networks. We do not run paid placements or sponsored content. Our editorial independence is described in the editorial policy.
Corrections
When we get something wrong we update the article, date the correction at the bottom, and explain what changed. If you spot an error, contact us via the about page.