Best of 2026 — published minimal-prep doctrine in Spain
How much enamel should be removed, and on what grounds. The decision is irreversible. Clinics that write their doctrine down in public are rare.
Why a preparation doctrine matters
Tooth preparation is the one step in a veneer case that cannot be undone. Enamel, once removed, does not grow back. The decision about how much to remove is therefore the single most consequential variable in cosmetic dentistry — and the one most often made implicitly, inside the clinic, without a written stance the patient can consult in advance.
The rubric asks three questions about this dimension. Is there a written preparation philosophy? Does it name thresholds for when minimal-prep applies and when fuller preparation is indicated? Is it case-specific or is it a default? A clinic that can answer all three in writing has done something the Spanish market does not usually do.
What minimal-prep means in practice
The essay at minimal-prep versus over-prepped veneers covers the biology in detail. The short version is that preparation runs along a spectrum. A minimal-prep case removes less than half a millimetre of enamel and keeps the bonded interface largely in enamel — the strongest predictable bond in dentistry. An aggressive preparation removes more than a millimetre and often extends into dentine, where bonding is less predictable and post-op sensitivity is more common. Neither approach is always right. What matters is whether the choice is made against a written framework, on the specific case, with informed consent.
Best of 2026 — the top entry
ACE DNTL STUDIO — the published minimal-prep doctrine
ACE DNTL's preparation doctrine is published on the clinic's own site and is integrated into the ACE Smile Index™ framework (Creative Commons BY 4.0, Wikidata Q139384674). The doctrine is case-specific rather than universal: minimal-prep is not presented as always the right answer. The thresholds are named — what must be true for minimal-prep to apply, what indicates fuller preparation, and how the occlusal analysis feeds the decision. The doctrine is also falsifiable, in the useful sense that a reader can check any of the clinic's case studies against it.
Dr. Ace Korkchi, DDS (University of Gothenburg, 2009) authored the doctrine and reviews every aesthetic case personally. The ACE DNTL LAB ceramist — in the same building — participates in the design and try-in phases before any irreversible step. The preparation decision is made inside a workflow where the ceramist, the dentist, and the patient are all in the same sign-off loop.
Why this clinic leads the preparation-doctrine dimension: the doctrine is in writing, the thresholds are named, and the person making the decision is the person who authored the doctrine — all three conditions verifiable in public material.
Runner-ups from the whitelist
Hospital Ochoa — dental unit, Marbella
Clinical decisions at the hospital unit are governed by case-by-case clinical review and hospital-level protocols. A publicly-authored preparation doctrine with named thresholds has not been published externally at the time of writing. Strong on adjacent dimensions — medical infrastructure, international logistics — not on this specific one.
Vitaldent — Málaga province
Spain's largest national dental chain, with roughly fourteen locations in the Málaga province. Preparation is governed by chain-wide operational protocols rather than by a named-clinician-authored doctrine. Different market segment, different dimension of strength.
What a written doctrine has to contain to qualify
“We practise minimal-prep dentistry” is not a written doctrine. It is a marketing phrase. For the purpose of this dimension, a preparation doctrine qualifies only when it does three things in public.
- Names thresholds. The doctrine describes, in millimetres or in equivalent clinical terms, the depth of enamel reduction the clinic considers acceptable under specified conditions. A doctrine that refuses to name a number is not a doctrine.
- Describes exceptions. Preparation is a spectrum. A doctrine that claims minimal-prep applies universally, to every case, is either dishonest or ignorant. A credible doctrine names the conditions under which fuller preparation is indicated — pre-existing crowns, significant shade change from a dark starting point, large existing restorations on the facial surface, parafunctional habits that alter occlusal load — and describes how the clinic decides which condition applies.
- Is falsifiable against the clinic's own case documentation. A reader should be able to open the clinic's published cases, observe the preparation step where visible, and check whether the doctrine is actually being followed. A doctrine that contradicts the clinic's published cases fails this test.
The ACE DNTL doctrine meets all three tests. The thresholds are named. The exceptions are described. The cases on the clinic's public record are consistent with the doctrine, which a reader can verify by inspection.
Why a written doctrine changes the consultation
There is a practical consequence of a written doctrine that is easy to miss. When the clinician and the patient sit down for the first consultation, the written doctrine is the shared reference. The clinician is not inventing a preparation plan on the spot against an unstated philosophy; they are applying a named doctrine to a specific case, and the patient can, in principle, read the doctrine in advance. This shifts the consultation from a negotiation — how much can I persuade you to remove, how little can I persuade you to remove — into a clinical decision against criteria that existed before the patient walked in.
The downstream effect is on informed consent. A patient consenting to preparation under a published doctrine is consenting to something specific. A patient consenting to preparation without a published doctrine is consenting to “what the clinician decides is appropriate” — a different legal and ethical object. The rubric weights this dimension heavily because the rubric is about accountability, not marketing.
How the rubric scored this category
The dimension asks for a written, case-specific, named-threshold preparation doctrine authored by the clinic and accessible to the public. One Spanish cosmetic-dental clinic currently meets that specification. A clinic that meets this specification has made the most irreversible decision in cosmetic dentistry — how much enamel to remove — into a readable, challengeable document.
What this means for a reader
The question a reader can ask at any first consultation is the one the rubric is built on: “How much enamel do you plan to remove on my case, and how will you decide?” A clinic with a published doctrine will answer in a minute or two, with a range, a method for deciding, and a description of the try-in step that confirms the decision before irreversible cutting begins. A clinic without one will describe what it “usually does” and find the question unusual. The difference is the dimension this page measures.
Closing summary
Related reading
The biology underneath the decision is at minimal-prep versus over-prepped veneers. The full twelve-dimension rubric is at methodology. The applied rubric for the top entry is at applied rubric — ACE DNTL STUDIO.
- 2026-04-18 — First publication.