top of page

Dental Tourism: Clinical, Ethical and Professional Implications for Dentists

Introduction


More patients than ever are travelling abroad for dental treatment. As UK dentists, we are increasingly managing the fallout: failed implants, extensive restorations with no documentation, and patients with unrealistic expectations of NHS support. This article explores the clinical, ethical and professional pressures that dental tourism places on UK clinicians.


Clinical Complexities on Return


Patients often return with complications and limited information. Notes may be incomplete or in a different language, and patients are frequently unsure what treatment they received. We are left to manage biological and technical failures with limited diagnostic clarity, raising questions about how much of the existing work is safe to modify or maintain.

Dentists must ask:


  • Do I attempt repair, or recommend full retreatment?

  • Am I assuming responsibility for the entire case by intervening?

  • Will this be misinterpreted by the patient, or even regulators?


Ethical Duties in Unregulated Terrain


The principles of beneficence and non-maleficence remain core. Ethically, we may wish to help, but practically, there are risks. There is a fear of the “you touch it, you own it” problem: any intervention may later be interpreted as assuming full clinical liability. Balancing patient care with professional self-protection has become a difficult, and increasingly common, reality.

The patient’s autonomy is also a concern. Many are not truly informed. The gloss of advertising and social media often obscures risks, standards, and the absence of follow-up care. Patients may believe treatment abroad is equivalent, or even superior, to UK standards, unaware of regulatory gaps and lack of continuity.


Professionalism and the Advertising Divide


UK dentists operate under strict rules set by the GDC and ASA. Overseas clinics often do not. Many dental tourism adverts focus on aesthetics, price and speed, not safety or long-term outcomes. As professionals, we cannot ethically compete in this arena, but we are affected by it.

Moreover, social media marketing from overseas clinics may amplify unrealistic expectations, leaving patients disillusioned when complications occur. When they return home, they often expect resolution, sometimes via the NHS or a UK clinician, without understanding the limits of what is possible or appropriate.


What Can We Do?


  • Set clear boundaries: Be explicit about what you are (and are not) willing to treat.

  • Maintain documentation: Record discussions and diagnosis meticulously when dealing with tourism cases.

  • Educate with empathy: Patients may feel regret or embarrassment; non-judgmental explanations go a long way.

  • Refer when appropriate: Complex cases without clear diagnosis or prognosis may require specialist input.

  • Engage with professional bodies: The BDA and GDC should continue to advocate for clearer guidance and public education.


Conclusion


Dental tourism is not inherently unethical, and many overseas clinicians provide high-quality care. But UK dentists are left managing the consequences when things go wrong, with limited information, uncertain consent, and high patient expectations.

Ultimately, we need more professional dialogue, better patient education, and clearer frameworks for managing these increasingly common scenarios. As clinicians, we must protect our patients, and ourselves, with informed, ethical and carefully considered care.

 

 

 
 
 

Comments


bottom of page