How clinic comparisons are prepared

Each clinic comparison identifies its geographical scope, the practices included and the services being compared. A five-practice Seoul article is not a survey of every dentist in Korea. A full-arch article may include a different set of practices because its treatment scope is narrower.

We collect the official practice name, location and the service information relevant to the article. When opening hours influence a recommendation, we record the specific service or department and any stated holiday exception. A whole-practice timetable is not substituted for a department timetable when those differ.

The comparison uses the same questions across practices: what treatment is described, how it connects to the restoration and continuing care, and whether the location and opening hours fit the stated situation. A missing detail is investigated before it becomes a claim. It is not replaced with an assumed zero or a claim that a service does not exist.

The recommendation is an editorial judgment based on those stated criteria. Clinic equipment is described as equipment, professional qualifications as qualifications, and reported procedure counts as reported activity. None is silently converted into a measured clinical outcome.

Prices are compared only when the included treatment is equivalent. The quote worksheet shows the components that need to be separated. Medical outcome numbers are handled using the distinctions in reading implant outcomes.

Sources and check dates appear with the articles so that changes can be traced. The editorial desk records unresolved conflicts separately and excludes unsupported claims from the public text.

Visitor-review counts refer to the count displayed in Naver’s visitor-review tab on the stated check date. They exclude the combined visitor-and-blog total. Short, attributed excerpts describe individual experiences of access and service; review volume does not determine the recommendation order.