How we measure
This is a positive-verification trust register: we verify structural facts of trust, not treatment outcomes. Each clinic gets an open profile across 9 axes on one public ruler. No hidden scores and no hand-placed ranks — the Structural Verification Index composite is computed from published weights. We take no money from clinics, never book or refer, and every clinic has a right of reply.
The gate — who enters the register
We list a clinic if it can be identified correctly, it delivers treatment (not just booking), and it is operating. If a clinic publishes no name for its treating dentists, we cannot verify who is accountable: it is listed in a "verification unavailable" state, not scored as bad. A missing name is a coverage statement about us, not an accusation about the clinic — and the clinic can supply names at any time.
- Clinic operating (Budapest unit) — the clinic is genuinely operating and its Budapest treatment unit is reachable
- Treatment provider, not a broker — the entity actually delivers the treatment — not a marketplace, affiliate or booking broker
- Named responsible clinician — a named, responsible clinician is published, so the OKFŐ licence and specialty can be checked
- In register scope (implant / oral surgery) — implant, oral surgery, prosthetics or full-mouth work — within the register's scope
Why these axes
Every axis passes three sieves: buyer relevance, verifiability against a public source, and robustness to confounds (brand size, SEO, domain age, a foreign phone number).
- Buyer-relevant. The axis answers a real patient question: is the named dentist actually licensed in Hungary, does the registered specialty match the implant work marketed, which entity is liable if something fails after I fly home, is the guarantee real and enforceable across a border, and are the prices honest before I arrive.
- Checkable. The value can be re-checked against a public source — chiefly Hungary's OKFŐ register (kereso.enkk.hu), which returns a dentist's operational registration and registered szakvizsga by name, plus the EU regulated-professions framework and the clinic's own published legal, guarantee and price terms.
- Robust to confounds. The heavy axes do not reward fame, a big review count or a slick site: a small Budapest-direct practice with a named, OKFŐ-verified dentist and honest guarantee terms beats a large anonymous booking front behind a foreign phone number.
The nine axes
Seven measured (88%) and two editorial (12%). Each runs 1 to 5; the composite is the weighted average over the axes with a value, mapped to 0–100.
| Axis | What the axis checks | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| M1 · Operational registration (OKFŐ) | Is the named responsible dentist listed in Hungary's public OKFŐ register (kereso.enkk.hu) with a current operational registration (működési nyilvántartás) — a live right to practise, checked by name, not merely a held diploma. This is the deterministic spine of the register. | 17% |
| M2 · Registered specialty (szakvizsga) | Does the registered specialty (szakvizsga) match the marketed specialist role — is a claimed "implantologist" resolved to a registered oral-implantology qualification, an oral surgeon to szájsebészet / dento-alveoláris sebészet, a prosthodontist to fogpótlástan. We verify that the title claim resolves to a registered record; we do not rule on what a dentist is legally allowed to do. | 19% |
| M3 · Treatment entity & accountability | Is the liable Budapest treatment entity clear — who does the patient contract with, at what address, and is a foreign consultation office a genuine clinical / diagnostic node or a marketing front. Under EU cross-border rules, redress is pursued in Hungary regardless; a clear, honest structure scores high whether Budapest-direct or a genuine two-location model. | 16% |
| M4 · Guarantee structure & honesty | Is the guarantee a written, cross-border-honest structure — per-item durations, realistic conditions (fly-back vs remote check-up, reporting window, exclusions), and terms that are consistent across the clinic's own language fronts. We score the existence and honesty of the structure and always flag that cross-border enforceability is limited; we never treat a "guarantee" as a quality promise. | 13% |
| M5 · Named clinical accountability | Is a specific clinical lead named and accountable, or is the treatment team hidden behind "our hand-picked dentists". This is about public attribution of responsibility, scored independently of the OKFŐ licence check. | 8% |
| M6 · Foreign-patient aftercare / redo | Is there a concrete, published aftercare and redo pathway for a patient who has flown home — first contact, time window, remote assessment or local report, who covers a repair, and a verified partner if one is named. | 8% |
| M7 · Price & total-cost transparency | Is pricing transparent and total-cost honest — published itemised prices, inclusions, and a clear on-arrival re-quote policy. Here published prices protect the buyer against on-arrival upselling, so transparency is a virtue; absent prices at a credential-led consult-only practice are read together with accountability, not penalised as dishonesty. | 7% |
| E1 · Professional corroboration | Professional and institutional corroboration — a university, academy or society role that checks out at the issuing body, verified rather than merely claimed, and never a substitute for the OKFŐ licence and specialty checks. | 7% |
| E2 · Facility / materials transparency | Facility and materials transparency — a stated facility status and concrete implant / material brands (Straumann, Nobel, Neodent…). Generic "ISO" or "CE-marked" claims are table-stakes, not a differentiator; specifics are a modest transparency signal. | 5% |
How the axes are weighted
The heavy block is the deterministic OKFŐ spine: registered specialty alignment (19) and operational registration (17) together carry 36% — is this a licensed Hungarian dentist, in the specialty the work needs, checked by name. Cross-border accountability follows (16), then the guarantee structure (13). The lighter axes — named accountability (8), aftercare (8), price transparency (7) — plus the two editorial axes (professional corroboration 7, facility/materials 5) round out the profile.
Measured axes sum to 88, editorial to 12. The Structural Verification Index = the weighted average of the axes that carry a value, mapped to 0–100. Below 85% coverage the composite is not published (verification pending); a provisional 70–84% profile is shown without a rank.
The soft verification hold
There is no adverse spine here: Hungary publishes no name-searchable register of disciplined dentists or sanctioned clinics, so we build none. A hold is a neutral statement about verifiability, never a disciplinary or quality accusation. A clarification-pending hold (H1) shows a provisional profile without a rank. A material structural conflict (H2) — for example, guarantee terms that materially contradict each other across the clinic's own language fronts — caps the composite at 69, in the partial-verification band, after a right of reply. If the named clinician cannot be resolved in OKFŐ, or the liable Budapest entity cannot be identified (H3), the composite is withheld and the profile is unranked with a neutral "core verification could not be completed" note. "Not found" is never rendered as proven absence, and every hold carries a source, a date and an invitation to reply.
Reproducible by design
Each cell carries a source class (OFFICIAL / SECONDARY / UNVERIFIED) and a date. A score without a source is impossible: "not found" is an empty value with text, not a guess. Any external auditor can repeat the OKFŐ name-search and re-read the same public terms. We accept edits from clinics only with a source link; we show the clinic's reply alongside, but we don't change a score without a source.