Reviews

Why there are no patient testimonials on this page

Australian law prohibits them.

Section 133 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law makes it an offence to use testimonials or purported testimonials about the clinical aspects of a regulated health service in advertising. Dentistry is a regulated health service. This is not a stylistic choice, and it is not modesty.

So you will not find, anywhere on this site:

• Patient quotes about their treatment or their results
• Star ratings presented as evidence of clinical quality
• Case stories describing how a named or identifiable person's treatment went
• Before-and-after images used as proof of outcome

A dental practice website carrying a wall of glowing patient quotes is not demonstrating quality. It is demonstrating a compliance problem, and AHPRA takes advertising complaints from any member of the public.

What the law actually counts as a testimonial

AHPRA's advertising guidelines define a testimonial as "recommendations or positive statements about the clinical aspects of a regulated health service used in advertising", and give the examples as patient stories, patient experiences or success stories. A purported testimonial is a statement that merely appears to be one — which is how fabricated reviews are caught by the same provision.

A comment engages the "clinical aspects" if it expresses any one of three things. AHPRA sets them out as a test:

• Symptom — "the specific symptom or the reason for seeking treatment"
• Diagnosis or treatment — "the specific diagnosis or treatment provided by the practitioner"
• Outcome — "the specific outcome or the skills or experience of the practitioner either directly or via comparison"

The third limb is the one that surprises people. A review that describes no procedure at all, but praises a practitioner's skill — or ranks them against someone else — is still a comment about a clinical aspect, and cannot be used in advertising.

And the part that is usually got wrong

Not every positive comment is a testimonial. AHPRA is explicit that "comments about customer service or communication style that do not include a reference to clinical aspects are not considered testimonials for the purposes of the National Law", and that such comments may be used in advertising.

So the rule is narrower than "no reviews ever" — and considerably stricter than the way most practice websites treat it. The distinction is not between positive and negative. It is between the front-of-house experience and the dentistry.

What about Google reviews?

Unsolicited reviews on platforms a practice does not control are treated differently, precisely because they are not the practice's own advertising. But a practice may not solicit them, incentivise them, or re-publish them in its own material — and a practitioner is responsible for content on pages they do control, including comments they can moderate.

The prohibition does not reach the patient. AHPRA states that it does not affect "patients sharing information, expressing their views online or posting reviews on review platforms", or how members of the public interact with review sites and discussion forums. It binds the advertiser, not you.

And "advertiser" is defined by control, not by ownership. An advertiser has control where they "publish or authorise content or direct someone to publish or draft content (including a third party, staff member or marketing agency)", or where there is a mechanism for the advertiser to modify or remove content published by an unrelated publisher. A practice is answerable for what its marketing agency writes on its behalf.

Where no such mechanism exists, there is no obligation to chase it: "advertisers do not have to remove or try to remove a review on a website or in social media over which they do not have control." But a practice's own social media page is advertising, and where individual reviews there cannot be edited or removed, AHPRA notes that compliance "may be achieved by disabling the reviews/testimonials functions."

So if you want to read reviews, read them where they are — not curated onto a practice's own website. Finding a dentist online in Australia covers what the rest of the search results are worth.

Editing a review is its own offence

Selectively editing reviews can breach the National Law independently of the testimonial rule, because it is misleading in itself. AHPRA names three forms of it:

• editing a negative review to make it positive, "as this falsely presents the feedback"
• editing a review with a mix of negative and positive comments so that only the positive ones are published, "as this falsely implies that the reviewer only had positive feedback"
• editing a review "so that it no longer accurately reflects all the reviewer's feedback and presents an inaccurate or false impression of the reviewer's views"

Selectively including or excluding whole reviews counts as well — the same misleading effect achieved by choosing which ones to publish. AHPRA's position is that "only publishing complete and unedited reviews that are not testimonials will help to avoid breaching the National Law requirements."

And what reviews actually measure

Worth being honest about, because they are the most-used signal and the most misleading.

What they can tell you: whether the practice runs on time, whether parking is difficult, whether reception is pleasant, whether the appointment hurt, and whether the account was handled properly. All of that is real and worth knowing.

What they cannot tell you: whether the diagnosis was correct, whether the treatment was necessary, whether the margins are sound, whether a lesion was missed, or whether you will still have that tooth in fifteen years. Patients are not able to assess any of it — which is not a criticism, and is exactly why the profession is regulated.

AHPRA's own stated reasons for the prohibition run along the same line. Testimonials are prohibited because they "are often personal opinions and may have no objective basis for recommending a registered health practitioner or health service"; because "the outcomes experienced by one patient do not necessarily reflect the outcome, or likely outcome available to all patients"; because they "are not usually a balanced source of information" and "often include a selection of positive comments about experiences and do not tell the whole story"; and because the public generally does not have the expert knowledge to judge whether what is being said is accurate.

And there is a perverse effect worth naming: a practitioner who tells you that you need nothing today, or who declines to prepare eight healthy front teeth, can attract a worse review than one who does the work.

Reviews are most useful in the aggregate, for patterns rather than scores. Repeated, specific complaints about unexpected charges, pressure to accept treatment, difficulty obtaining records, or unreturned calls about a complication are genuine signals. A single furious review, or a single ecstatic one, is not.

What to use instead

1. Check the register — free, one minute

The AHPRA public register at ahpra.gov.au is the only external check that means anything. It shows:

• whether registration is current
• the division — dentist, dental specialist, oral health therapist, dental hygienist, dental therapist, or dental prosthetist
• any specialist registration, in one of the thirteen recognised specialties
• any conditions, undertakings or reprimands currently in force — the item most people do not know is public

No award, rating, review score or "best dentist" listing appears on it. And no register measures clinical skill — it establishes who is entitled to practise, and how. The practice's own awards are business awards, and are not evidence of clinical quality either.

2. Judge the treatment plan, not the marketing

These four questions are worth more than every review you will ever read, and you can ask them at any practice inside twenty minutes:

1. "What happens if I do nothing?" Every legitimate option has a describable consequence. A practitioner who cannot state it is not offering you a choice. The risks and alternatives for the common procedures are published here for exactly that reason.
2. "What is the least invasive option that would work?" Then ask why it is not the recommendation.
3. "Can I have the plan and an itemised quote in writing, with ASDS item numbers?" Those numbers are the standard Australian code set — they let you price the same treatment elsewhere, against something like the published price guide, and check your health fund rebate before committing.
4. "Can I take this away, think about it, and get a second opinion?" The answer should be yes, without pressure, and you are entitled to your records and radiographs to take with you.

3. Know what counts as evidence, and what does not

Any claim made in advertising a regulated health service has to be substantiable. AHPRA calls the standard acceptable evidence, and describes it as "empirical data from formal research or systematic studies in the form of peer-reviewed publications". A well-conducted systematic review of relevant randomised controlled trials is the highest level — provided it identifies all the studies on the topic and is "systematic, reproducible and representative of the totality of evidence". The point of that last phrase is that the research must not be cherry-picked.

The list of what generally does not count is the useful part, because between them these describe a great deal of dental marketing:

• studies involving no human subjects
• before and after studies with few or no controls
• self-assessment studies
• anecdotal evidence based on observations in practice
• outcome studies or audits, unless bias or other factors that may influence the results are carefully controlled
• studies that are not applicable to the target population

A single case study, and a comparative study without concurrent controls, are both given as examples of unacceptable evidence — the design itself carries a higher risk of biased or inaccurate findings.

And AHPRA draws a distinction that explains the whole regime. The evidence needed for an advertising claim and the evidence behind a clinical decision are not the same thing. In the surgery you are told the evidence for each option, you can ask questions, and you decide. Advertising, by contrast, "does not provide this opportunity as the claims are generic and practitioners are not available to clarify whether a treatment is appropriate for an individual." That conversation belongs at your appointment, not on a website — including this one.

4. Notice what is not being said

Misleading by omission is the most common form of non-compliant dental advertising. Watch for:

• How much tooth structure is removed, in millimetres, and whether a “veneer” is actually a crown
• How long it lasts, and what replacement costs
• The whole price. A root canal quoted without the crown is half a quote. An implant quoted without the abutment and crown is a third of one. A general anaesthetic quoted without the anaesthetist and facility fee is not a quote at all. Quoting an instalment amount without stating the total cost is itself named by AHPRA as a potential breach, because the total is a condition of the offer.
• Time pressure. A discount that expires, attached to irreversible treatment, is what the advertising rules exist to control. AHPRA names the vocabulary: "don't delay", "act now before it's too late", "don't miss out", "time is running out", "for a limited time only" — unlawful where they are tied to an unsubstantiated suggestion that your health will suffer if you do not act now. Encouraging attendance at periodic appointments with no clinical indication, and contracting for future services, are named in the same provision.

What it costs a practice to get this wrong

A breach of an advertising requirement is a criminal offence for which a court may impose a monetary penalty. A current or previously registered practitioner may also face disciplinary action.

The maximum penalties were increased by amendment to the National Law in 2022, and have applied in every jurisdiction since July 2024: up to $60,000 per offence for an individual, and up to $120,000 per offence for a body corporate. Unlawful use of a protected title carries the same financial maxima, and for an individual, imprisonment of up to three years per offence.

One thing to know if you read the source yourself: the Guidelines for advertising a regulated health service still print the superseded figures of $5,000 and $10,000, because AHPRA has said the guidelines will be updated with the change when they are next reviewed. The higher penalties are the ones in force.

Enforcement escalates with risk, and with whether the advertiser is willing to comply — for registered practitioners, from investigating conduct, through disciplinary action in a panel or tribunal, to prosecution.

If you want to tell us something

We would rather hear it directly than read it later.

Compliments are welcome and will not be published.

Complaints should be put to the practice in writing, at theteam@smilesolutions.com.au, through the contact page, or by post to the address below. Most matters resolve here, and they resolve faster when raised early.

And if they do not resolve, these avenues are free and independent:

• The Health Complaints Commissioner (Victoria) — complaints about health services, including cost and communication
• AHPRA and the Dental Board of Australia — concerns about a practitioner's conduct, performance or health. Anyone can make a notification.
• Consumer Affairs Victoria and the ACCC — misleading claims and unfair contract terms, under the Australian Consumer Law
• AFCA — complaints about credit or payment arrangements

Every registered practitioner must hold professional indemnity insurance as a condition of registration. Every clinician at this practice is listed, with their registration category, on the our team page.

Common questions

Someone is advertising a free consultation, or a discount. Is that allowed?

Yes, but only with its terms attached — and the terms are where most of these offers come apart.

Section 133(1)(b) of the National Law prohibits advertising that "offers a gift, discount or other inducement to attract a person to use the service or the business, unless the advertisement also states the terms and conditions of the offer." AHPRA adds that those terms "should be provided in plain language", and that an advertisement can breach the law either by omitting them altogether or by stating terms that are themselves misleading.

On the word "free" specifically, AHPRA's position is blunt: "the public generally consider the word 'free' to mean 'absolutely' free. When the costs of a 'free offer' are recouped through a price rise elsewhere or through other sources such as Medicare, the offer is not actually free."

The examples it gives of advertising that may breach the law are a serviceable checklist:

• price information that is unclear, inexact or vague
• an offer of "make one consultation appointment, get one free" where the price of the first consultation has been raised to largely cover the second
• excluding reference to any existing restriction or limitation — such as age, expiry date, or geographical limits

Applied here: this practice's complimentary consultations are a discussion only, and the cosmetic one carries a $50 refundable deposit to hold the appointment — which is exactly the sort of condition that belongs in the advertisement rather than in a phone call afterwards. If any offer you are looking at, here or anywhere, does not tell you what is included, what is excluded, when it expires and what the total cost is, that is the question to ask before you book.

A clinic describes someone as a "specialist". How do I check, and does it matter?

It matters enough that the law attaches imprisonment to getting it wrong, and it takes about a minute to check.

Section 115 of the National Law provides that a person must not knowingly or recklessly take or use the titles "dental specialist", "medical specialist" or a specialist title for a recognised specialty unless the person is registered under that specialty. Section 117 goes further, prohibiting anyone from claiming or holding themselves out to be registered or qualified to practise in a profession or a division of one when they are not — including by using a title that would induce a belief that they are.

Penalties for misusing a protected title run to the same financial maxima as an advertising breach, and for an individual may include imprisonment of up to three years per offence.

The practical check is the AHPRA public register at ahpra.gov.au. It shows whether registration is current, the division, and whether the practitioner holds specialist registration — and in which of the thirteen recognised dental specialties. A title that does not appear on that list is a description of an interest, not a registered specialty, however official it sounds. One title that is permitted and often confuses people: a registered dentist may use "dental surgeon" without holding specialist registration.

A practice says it is the "best", or "leading", or "award-winning". Is that worth anything?

Treat it as marketing until it is substantiated, because that is exactly how the law treats it.

AHPRA's guidance puts comparative claims in the same category as any other claim in health advertising: they "must be clear, accurate and supported by acceptable evidence where relevant". The examples it gives of comparative advertising are comparisons between health outcomes and quality of care offered by different services, comparing professions, or the competency, skill or experience of practitioners, and price comparisons. It separately names advertising that "makes claims about providing a superior regulated health service" as potentially in breach.

And the evidence bar is the high one set out above — peer-reviewed empirical data, not testimonials, not before-and-after collections, not anecdote from practice. Very few superlatives in dental advertising could meet it, which is a reason to be sceptical of the ones you see.

Awards are a separate thing again. Business awards recognise business performance, and this practice's own awards are of that kind. They say nothing about whether a margin is sound or a diagnosis is correct, and no award of any kind appears on the AHPRA register.

A beauty salon near me advertises teeth whitening. Does any of this apply to them?

Yes to the advertising law, and there is a second rule that matters even more.

Section 133 begins "a person must not advertise a regulated health service" — a person, not a registered practitioner — and the section defines a regulated health service as "a service provided by, or usually provided by, a health practitioner." So the testimonial ban, the inducement rule and the prohibition on misleading claims bind a non-dental business advertising a dental service just as they bind a dental practice.

The second rule is about the product rather than the advertisement. The Australian Dental Association records that Schedule 10 of the Poisons Standard "specifically states that teeth whitening products containing more than 6% hydrogen peroxide or 18% carbamide peroxide may only be sold, supplied and used by registered dental practitioners as part of their dental practise", with those provisions formalised in every state and territory's poisons legislation. Products at or below 3–6% hydrogen peroxide and 9–18% carbamide peroxide sit in Schedule 5 and can be sold direct to consumers with the stipulated safety warnings.

So a non-dental operator can lawfully sell you a low-concentration product. What they cannot lawfully do is apply or supply one above those thresholds. If you are unsure, ask what concentration is being used and who is registered to supply it — and see teeth whitening for what the treatment does and does not achieve.

Related reading

• What makes a truly great dentist?
• How important is communication in dentistry?
• 5 questions you've always wanted to ask your dentist
• Why would I need to see a dental specialist?
• Why choose us — stated plainly, and without testimonials

Related pages: Smile Solutions lands a Telstra Business Award, Welcome to Smile Solutions, Dentists & Registered Specialists.

Practical details

Smile Solutions, Level 1, 220 Collins Street, Manchester Unity Building, Melbourne VIC 3000. Phone 13 13 96, or theteam@smilesolutions.com.au. Monday–Friday 8.00am–6.00pm, Saturday 8.30am–1.30pm, Sunday by appointment.

Every practitioner's registration, division and any specialist entry can be verified free on the AHPRA public register at ahpra.gov.au.

This page contains general information. It is not a diagnosis, a treatment plan or a promise of any particular outcome. No testimonials about clinical care are published on this site, in accordance with section 133 of the National Law. Statements of law and regulatory practice on this page are drawn from AHPRA's published advertising guidance and are current at the time of writing; check ahpra.gov.au for the current position.

Smile Solutions trades under ABN 28 193 514 103.