Beyond the bargain: dental tourism and its impact on patients and practitioners

In recent years, the appeal of affordable cosmetic dentistry abroad has drawn thousands of UK patients to countries such as Turkey, Hungary, and Poland. Promises of a perfect smile for less than half the price of UK treatments has turned dental tourism into a booming industry. However, with the growing demand for low-cost cosmetic procedures comes increasing concerns about the long-term implications when treatments go wrong, which can create complex ethical and legal issues for practitioners.

The appeal of dental tourism

Cosmetic dental procedures such as veneers, crowns, and implants can cost thousands in the UK. Abroad, the same treatments are often advertised at a fraction of the price, frequently bundled with luxury hotel stays and other travel perks. According to UK Smiles - Turkey Dental Statistics (2025), dental implants in Turkey typically cost between £400 and £500 compared to £2,000 to £2,500 in the UK. Veneers range from £3,000 to £6,000 in Turkey, versus £8,000 to £16,000 in the UK. Overall, dental treatments are estimated to be around 50-70% cheaper than the UK.

While some overseas clinics offer high-quality care, others may cut corners to keep prices low. According to a recent BBC report, one of the major concerns is the quality of pre-treatment screening with consultations sometimes being held in hotel rooms and by individuals not registered as dentists in the UK. The BBC has highlighted concerns shared among dentists about patients arriving for treatment in foreign countries without having been appropriately screened or given informed consent for treatment. Language barriers, rushed procedures, use of unregulated materials and lack of follow-up care are common issues that can lead to serious complications, which are often left for UK practitioners and insurers to manage.

Common complications

Patients returning from overseas having undergone cosmetic dental treatments frequently report a range of issues, including:

Poorly fitted crowns or veneers causing pain or infection
Excessive tooth preparation, leading to long-term structural damage
Inadequate hygiene standards resulting in post-operative complications
Lack of aftercare, leaving UK dentists to manage complex rectification work

Considerations for UK practitioners

As the dental tourism trend continues to grow, UK practitioners will increasingly encounter patients seeking help for complications as a result of overseas treatment.

In many cases, UK dental professionals are reluctant to treat complications from overseas cosmetic dental procedures due to liability concerns and the complexity of the rectification work. This is completely understandable, and it is important for practitioners to consider the litigation risks of undertaking such treatment. It is advisable for practitioners to seek advice from their indemnifier/insurer before embarking on remedial treatment in such circumstances.

UK dentists do however have a professional obligation to address acute symptoms such as pain regardless of whether the prior treatment was undertaken abroad. The General Dental Council sets out nine principles that must always be adhered to, which includes ensuring that patients’ interests are put first.

If something goes wrong with treatment in the UK, patients can raise complaints to the GDC, which has authority to investigate. However, the GDC cannot investigate dental treatment carried out outside the UK, potentially leaving patients with limited options for legal recourse. It is important for practitioners to ensure that they have adequate indemnity or insurance in place to guarantee that any patient who suffers harm during treatment in the UK can seek appropriate compensation. The key point in relation to dental tourism is to ensure that the practitioner and their insurer or indemnifier is not on the hook for any treatment provided abroad.

Tips for practitioners navigating responsibility and protecting themselves

We suspect that many patients who are considering dental treatment abroad may have first visited a UK practitioner for an assessment and/or quote for similar treatment. UK practitioners can assist their patients in providing information about the potential risks of such treatment. This can include advising the patient to:

Conduct thorough research into the clinic and practitioner qualifications
Ensure the dentist is registered with a reputable professional body
Clarify aftercare provisions and guarantees explaining the potential costs of remedial treatment if the treatment abroad leads to complications (see below re: NHS cover in such circumstances)
Understand how complications will be managed and any legal limitations involved

If a patient has undergone treatment abroad when a practitioner first sees them, the following guidance may assist.

Initial assessment

Robust documentation is essential to protect practitioners and ensure transparency in patient care.

As with any patient assessment, it is important to ensure that a comprehensive clinical assessment is undertaken before any treatment is recommended or commenced.
Practitioners must only provide care that falls within their scope of practice and competence.
Practitioners must ensure that they are appropriately indemnified/insured for the treatment they undertake.
The patient must be given full, clear and accurate information so that they can understand the problems and the recommended course of treatment in order to provide informed consent (principles 2 and 3 of GDC standards).
If a patient’s treatment needs fall outside of the practitioner’s competency or scope of practice, make alternative arrangements or referrals when necessary. It is important to remember that if the practitioner does have the appropriate expertise, the GDC would expect them to act in the patient’s best interests; a practitioner should not decline to treat simply because the patient has received treatment abroad.

Note keeping

A practitioner’s notes should clearly distinguish between the overseas care and UK-provided care. This will ensure a clear record of the pre-existing findings at the point of the initial consultation. It would assist if the notes detailed the treatment provided abroad, clinical findings on assessment, treatment plans and rationale and patient communications. Clinical photographs may also help.
If possible, it would be advisable for the practitioner to encourage the patient to seek follow-up care from the original provider, although patients may be unwilling to do so if they are facing complications and have lost trust in the international provider.
It would assist if information could be obtained from the practitioner who provided treatment abroad so that the UK practitioner has a record of exactly what treatment has been undertaken before considering remedial options. Consent would need to be obtained from the patient to take this step. This information should be recorded within the notes.
Patients should be made aware that the NHS does not always cover repairs or replacements of dental work performed abroad although they may cover the costs of the assessment and evaluation to stabilise their condition. The usual NHS acceptance criteria will apply and the self-funded care that the NHS does not routinely cover would not usually be offered or would be replaced once stabilisation has been achieved. It is important to remember that many patients embarking on treatment abroad will not have considered the fact that follow up treatment with the international provider will be difficult, if not impossible, and that they will likely need to be prepared to pay for rectification costs personally.
It would be helpful to follow up any advice given to the patient in writing, setting out the risks with correcting any foreign dental work (which also makes clear the aspects of the treatment that were not provided by the practitioner in the UK). Practitioners should consider whether remedial work is feasible or whether it would be more appropriate and safer to undertake a full re-do of the international treatment. Practitioners ought to be mindful of claims which arise from patients claiming that remedial treatment would have saved time, costs, pain and suffering, and, conversely, those which argue that remedial treatment was always going to fail such that the UK practitioner should never have recommended it.

We appreciate that UK dentists are in a difficult position when treating patients who have complications following dental treatment carried out abroad. Practitioners will undoubtedly want to support their patients and offer the best possible care. By adhering to clinical best practices, maintaining clear documentation, securing appropriate indemnity/insurance, and communicating transparently with patients to obtain fully informed consent, practitioners should be able to protect themselves legally while ensuring patient safety and care quality.