Clinical review process
Which clinician reviews which kind of page, what they are checking for, and what happens when they disagree with a draft.
Last updated
Who reviews
Clinical review is carried out by clinicians at Taki Dent. Implant and surgical content is reviewed by two of them — the surgeon who places implants and the prosthodontist who restores them — because implant treatment is a surgical and a restorative problem at the same time, and a page checked from only one of those directions misses half of what matters.
- Dr. Barış Kipritoğlu — Specialist in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Places the implants at Taki Dent and works with Nobel Biocare systems most closely, so surgical and implant-system content is reviewed by him.
- Dr. Sadık Taki — Specialist Prosthodontist. Specialist prosthodontist and founder of Taki Dent. Reviews the restorative side of implant treatment — what sits on the implant, and how the plan for the teeth shapes the surgical plan.
- Dr. Mustafa Kayacan — Specialist in Restorative Dentistry. Reviews restorative and aesthetic content, including how implant restorations are matched to the remaining natural teeth.
What a reviewer checks
- Is anything stated as fact clinically wrong, or simplified to the point of being misleading?
- Does any sentence promise an outcome, imply a guarantee or assert superiority?
- Is anything a patient would need in order to consent missing — a risk, a caveat, an alternative?
- Would the page lead a reader to believe a decision has been made that only examination can make?
- Are the alternatives presented fairly, including doing nothing?
How a page moves through review
- The editorial team drafts the page and cites its claims from the claim register.
- An automated pass checks the claims resolve to sources and flags language the site does not permit.
- An independent language model screening pass produces a findings list — a first filter, never sign-off.
- The reviewing clinicians read the draft and return corrections.
- Corrections are applied. A correction that introduces a new clinical assertion needs a source before it can be published.
- The page publishes with the reviewers named and the review date shown.
When a reviewer disagrees
The clinician's judgement decides. If a claim cannot be supported to their satisfaction, it comes out — including where it would have made the page more persuasive. Where reviewers differ from each other, the page states the range of clinical opinion rather than picking one and presenting it as settled.
What clinical review is not
It is not a diagnosis, and reviewing a page creates no clinical relationship between the reviewers and anyone reading it. Nothing on this site — reviewed or otherwise — can establish whether a treatment suits you. That requires clinical examination and appropriate radiological assessment.