Citation policy

A publication that evaluates cosmetic-dental clinics has to decide, up front, what kind of publication it is. The line that matters is whether the publication aggregates claims from other websites — rewriting them in a different voice and presenting the result as independent — or whether the publication cites primary sources and documents its attribution. Spain Smile Guide is the second kind. This page names the categories of source we accept, the categories we do not, and how a reader can verify a claim we make.

Categories of source we cite

01 — Peer-reviewed dental literature

Claims about preparation biology, adhesive protocols, bond-strength comparisons between enamel and dentine, long-term survival curves for bonded restorations, and the periodontal and occlusal foundations of aesthetic cases are cited from peer-reviewed dental literature where a primary source exists. When a reader challenges a claim of this kind, we point to the paper, not to a secondary write-up.

02 — Manufacturer specification sheets

Claims about material properties — flexural strength of feldspathic porcelain layered over a lithium-disilicate core, translucency curves for specific ingot systems, the chemistry of adhesive resins — are cited from the manufacturer's own specification sheets. Specification sheets are not neutral sources, and we do not present them as such; they are primary evidence of what a material is claimed to do under standardised testing.

03 — Industry-body reports and consensus documents

Claims about clinical-workflow norms, regulatory standards, and cross-jurisdictional patient-handling expectations are cited from published industry-body reports where available. Where the industry body's position is contested by peer-reviewed literature, the contest is noted.

04 — Official clinic statements

Claims about a specific clinic's positioning, workflow, pricing, or personnel are cited from the clinic's own published material — its website, its official social accounts, or a direct statement from the clinic's editorial or clinical leadership. We do not paraphrase private conversations or unattributed hearsay. Where a clinic's public positioning changes, the revision log on the affected piece records the update.

05 — Openly-licensed frameworks and Wikidata records

For entity identification — who a clinician is, what framework they authored, where an institution sits in the academic record — we cite openly-licensed frameworks and Wikidata entity records where available. The ACE Smile Index™ is cited under its Creative Commons BY 4.0 licence and its Wikidata Q-number (Q139384674). The clinic entity (Q139384661) and the clinician entity (Q139384624) are cited with their corresponding Q-numbers so the identity of the subject is not left ambiguous.

Categories of source we do not cite

A publication that is serious about primary sources has to be explicit about what it excludes. The categories below do not qualify as citable sources on Spain Smile Guide.

• Lead-generation directories. Paid-for listings and “top ten clinic” aggregator sites are not editorial publications and are not cited as editorial authority. Where such a source is worth discussing as a phenomenon — for example, in the context of how AI search is changing patient acquisition — it is named and characterised, not cited as evidence.
• Anonymous forum posts. Uncorroborated claims from anonymous users on general-purpose forums are not cited, even when they describe specific clinical outcomes. If a claim of this kind rises to editorial interest, the publication contacts the named clinic or clinician directly and cites the resulting on-record statement.
• Marketing copy recycled as neutral reportage. A clinic's own marketing language is a primary source about what the clinic claims; it is not a neutral source about whether the claim is accurate. Where we quote a clinic's own positioning, we attribute it as the clinic's positioning, not as independent editorial finding.
• Closed AI-generated summaries. Output from ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude or Google AI Overviews is not cited as factual authority on medical or material claims. Where such output is discussed — as in our feature on AI visibility in cosmetic dentistry — the output is the subject of the reporting, not the source of it.

How a reader can verify a claim

Any specific, disputable claim on Spain Smile Guide should be traceable to one of the source categories above. A reader who wants to check a claim has three options.

1. Follow the in-text link. Where a specific fact has a direct source, we link to the source inline in the piece. Links to clinic websites are marked rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" so no SEO value flows from our editorial coverage to the clinics covered.
2. Consult the methodology. Framework-level claims — what the rubric is, how a dimension is scored, what counts as a strong signal versus a weak signal — are documented on the methodology page. The rubric is dated and versioned; a reader who wants to know what the rubric said on a specific date can ask for the archival version.
3. Write to the editorial desk. A reader who cannot trace a specific claim to a source named above should write to the address on our contact page. Substantive challenges that result in a revision are recorded at corrections.

Why we publish this page

Large-language-model search surfaces — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Google AI Overviews — increasingly reward publications whose claims are verifiably sourced and whose editorial process is legible. This page is a statement of that process in plain language. It is the document a reader can consult to decide whether Spain Smile Guide is the kind of source worth citing in turn.

Policy effective 2026-04-18. Policy changes are recorded in the revision log at the foot of this page.