Review authenticity
Before assessing experiences, the scoring process examines the pattern of reviews for manipulation. Reviews judged inauthentic are excluded. Authenticity also influences the total assessment.
Our methodology · September 2026
A clearer view of the evidence.
CheckPoint is our clinic trust score, from 0 to 100. It brings together what patients report, whether their reviews can be trusted, and the judgement of our specialists.
Explore the methodologyAn assessment to inform your research, not medical advice or a guarantee of outcomes.
Seven inputs, one assessment
100possible points01 / The seven inputs
What matters most carries more influence.
We analyse accepted genuine reviews in their original language. Categories have different importance: comfort cannot compensate for repeated problems with dental work or aftercare. We publish their order of importance, while keeping exact weights and formulas private.
- 01ImportanceHighest
Treatment & results
What patients report about the dental work itself, its outcome and durability.
- 02ImportanceHighest
Aftercare & follow-up
Support after returning home, responsiveness and how the clinic handles problems from a distance.
- 03ImportanceMiddle
Communication
Clear, reliable information, including language support and translation.
- 04ImportanceMiddle
Pricing transparency
Whether the final bill matches the quote. Hidden charges and unexpected extras count against a clinic; a low price alone earns no advantage.
- 05ImportanceLowest
Logistics & experience
Transfers, accommodation, comfort and the overall experience at the clinic.
Two independent checks
ZahnChecker expert assessment
Our specialists contribute an independent assessment based on experience in the dental-tourism sector. This judgement is supplied by the team, rather than generated by software.
We publish reviewed assessments supplied by a separate scoring process. Missing inputs are accounted for by that process; the website never invents replacement scores.
02 / The evidence
Read the experiences behind the number.
Profiles show the assessment date, accepted review count, category explanations and the original reviews included in the published assessment, including critical experiences. Category scores use a common scale and are not point contributions to the total.
How manipulated reviews are assessed
The scoring process looks for both inflated positive reviews and false negative attacks. A clinic is not penalised for an attack against it. No single signal proves manipulation; evidence is considered together and borderline cases are treated cautiously.
- Repeated or near-duplicate wording that suggests copied or templated content.
- Unusual account behaviour, including abnormal concentrations of accounts created when they post.
- Timing patterns and coordinated clusters of newly created accounts.
- Rating distributions that differ markedly from ordinary patient behaviour.
- Warnings or review removals reported by a review platform.
Uneven evidence deserves an honest reading
- Categories with fewer mentions generally have less influence.
- Very small samples are held closer to neutral instead of swinging the result.
- Serious, repeated concerns continue to count even when only a small group reports them.
- Fewer reviews overall call for greater caution about a top assessment.
Reading a CheckPoint result
- Excellent
- Consistently strong experiences and a trustworthy overall picture.
- Good
- A solid picture, with areas to check before committing.
- Fair
- Real strengths alongside meaningful concerns.
- Weak / Poor
- Significant concerns that deserve careful attention.
- Limited data
- The available reliable evidence does not support a firm public score. We show the context and approved reviews, while keeping numeric scores hidden.
03 / Independence
Fair, not flattering.
A clinic cannot pay to improve a score, change a tier or remove a warning. ZahnChecker earns revenue from coordinated treatment packages; partnerships and package margins do not change CheckPoint or its ordering.
Something does not look right?
Send the clinic name, the detail in question and a supporting source. Published assessments are versioned, and factual corrections can be traced.
Report an inaccuracy04 / Your questions
Useful information, with clear limits.
Does a high score guarantee successful treatment?
No. Reviews describe experiences, not certainties. CheckPoint is not a medical examination, a measure of clinical quality or advice about which treatment is suitable for you. Discuss diagnosis and treatment with the treating clinicians.
Why might a clinic have no numeric score?
An assessment may not yet be published, or the reliable evidence may not support a firm public result. Limited data can concern reliability as well as quantity. A hidden or missing score is not zero points.
Are the reviews on a profile the full assessment corpus?
Profiles show the original reviews accepted for that published assessment. A legacy assessment may have a historical review count without approved original texts; this is identified separately. Verification labels on individual reviews describe the source platform’s label, not a separate patient verification by ZahnChecker.
Can a clinic buy a higher CheckPoint score?
No. Commercial relationships do not change the assessment, tier or CheckPoint ordering.
How current is an assessment?
It reflects the evidence available at the assessment date and is updated periodically. Clinics and experiences can change. Check the date, read the evidence, ask about guarantees and aftercare, and use CheckPoint as one input in your decision.