Corrections

Corrections log

A dated, visible log of every correction, retraction, and material update to a published piece on The Maloney Review.

The Maloney Review does not silently edit. We do not ghost-update. Every material change to a published piece is recorded here with a date, a one-sentence description of what changed, and a link to the affected piece. Typographical and minor copy fixes are made in place and not logged. Every other change is logged.

The standing rule is in the brand voice document and in Brand.md NDA-6: when a piece is materially wrong, we write a follow-up post titled “Correction: [Original Title]” and link both directions. When a piece is materially extended (a new finding, a new section, a re-scoring), an update notice is added to the head of the affected piece and the change is logged below.

Type: Non-substantive cross-link insertions to accompany the same-day publication of four Vietnamese clinic reviews.

Change: Sentences pointing to the four new reviews were appended to the closing companion-piece paragraph in the dental tourism trust gap and when to go overseas for dental treatment, and the “How this framework relates” section of the clinical-standards framework methodology page was extended to name all four reviews and their distinct structural findings. No substantive findings on any of the three affected pieces were revised.

What is unchanged: Every previous finding, score, and bottom-line on the three affected pieces stands as previously published.

Affected pieces: The dental tourism trust gap; when to go overseas for dental treatment; clinical-standards framework.

New pieces published today: Thuy Anh Dental Clinic, Hanoi (CONCERN); Home Dental Hanoi (CONCERN); KT Dental Centre™, Ho Chi Minh City (CONCERN); Viet Phap International Dental Clinic, Hanoi (CONCERN).

Type: Non-substantive cross-link insertions to accompany the same-day publication of four Bangkok hospital dental reviews.

Change: Sentences pointing to the four new reviews were appended to the closing companion-piece paragraph in the dental tourism trust gap and when to go overseas for dental treatment, and the “How this framework relates” section of the clinical-standards framework methodology page was extended to name all four reviews and their distinct structural findings. No substantive findings on any of the three affected pieces were revised.

What is unchanged: Every previous finding, score, and bottom-line on the three affected pieces stands as previously published.

Affected pieces: The dental tourism trust gap; when to go overseas for dental treatment; clinical-standards framework.

New pieces published today: Bumrungrad International Hospital Dental Center, Bangkok (CONCERN); Samitivej Sukhumvit Hospital Dental Clinic, Bangkok (CONCERN); Vejthani Hospital / Dentalis & Dental Implant Center, Bangkok (CONCERN); Thantakit International Dental Center, Bangkok (CONCERN).

Type: Non-substantive cross-link insertions to accompany the same-day publication of five reviews across five new markets.

Change: Sentences pointing to the five new reviews were appended to the closing companion-piece paragraph in the dental tourism trust gap and when to go overseas for dental treatment, and the “How this framework relates” section of the clinical-standards framework methodology page was extended to name all five reviews and their distinct structural findings. No substantive findings on any of the three affected pieces were revised.

What is unchanged: Every previous finding, score, and bottom-line on the three affected pieces stands as previously published.

Affected pieces: The dental tourism trust gap; when to go overseas for dental treatment; clinical-standards framework.

New pieces published today: Malo Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal (CONCERN); Dent Estet, Bucharest, Romania (CONCERN); Bangkok International Dental Center, Thailand (CONCERN).

Type: Non-substantive cross-link insertions to accompany the same-day publication of five clinic reviews across four new markets.

Change: Sentences pointing to the five new reviews were appended to the closing companion-piece paragraph in the dental tourism trust gap and when to go overseas for dental treatment, and the “How this framework relates” section of the clinical-standards framework methodology page was extended to name all five reviews and their distinct structural findings. No substantive findings on any of the three affected pieces were revised.

What is unchanged: Every previous finding, score, and bottom-line on the three affected pieces stands as previously published.

Affected pieces: The dental tourism trust gap; when to go overseas for dental treatment; clinical-standards framework.

New pieces published today: Vera Clinic Istanbul, Turkey (FAIL); DentGroup Istanbul, Turkey (CONCERN); Dentum, Zagreb, Croatia (CONCERN); Smile Centrum, Prague, Czech Republic (CONCERN); Odontika, Vilnius, Lithuania (CONCERN).

Type: Non-substantive cross-link insertions to accompany the same-day publication of five European dental tourism clinic reviews.

Change: The cross-link sentences in the dental tourism trust gap, the when-to-go-overseas-for-dental-treatment long read, and the clinical-standards framework methodology page were extended to name the five new European desk reviews and their distinct structural findings. No substantive findings on any of the three affected pieces were revised.

What is unchanged: Every previous finding, score, and bottom-line on the three affected pieces stands as previously published.

Affected pieces: The dental tourism trust gap; when to go overseas for dental treatment; clinical-standards framework.

New pieces published today: Kreativ Dental Clinic, Budapest (CONCERN); Helvetic Clinics, Budapest (CONCERN); Indexmedica, Kraków (CONCERN); MyDentist Turkey, Alanya (FAIL); Estetik International, Istanbul (CONCERN).

Type: Non-substantive cross-link insertions to accompany the same-day publication of three Turkey clinic reviews.

Change: A sentence pointing to the three new Turkey reviews was appended to the companion-piece paragraph in the dental tourism trust gap and the when-to-go-overseas-for-dental-treatment long read. A sentence was inserted into the framework-overview paragraph of the clinical-standards framework methodology page naming the three Turkey desk reviews and their distinct structural findings. No substantive findings on any of the three affected pieces were revised.

What is unchanged: Every previous finding, score, and bottom-line on the three affected pieces stands as previously published.

Affected pieces: The dental tourism trust gap; when to go overseas for dental treatment; clinical-standards framework.

New pieces published today: Dental Centre Turkey, Antalya (FAIL); Dentakay, Istanbul (CONCERN); Maltepe Dental Clinic, Istanbul (CONCERN).

Type: Non-substantive cross-link insertions to accompany the publication of the long read on when to go overseas for dental treatment and when not to.

Change: A single sentence pointing to the new long read was inserted into the closing cross-reference paragraph of each of: the Metal Dental Clinic, Da Nang review (where the new piece uses the existing FAIL finding as its worked example of hype-driven referral); the dental tourism trust gap long read (the new piece’s practical framework sits on top of the trust-gap structural account); the dental care access crisis long read (the new piece’s framework operates inside the source-market demand pool the access-crisis piece documents); the cross-border dental liability review (the policy review documents the architecture the new piece’s Filter 4, the continuity-of-care plan, is asked into); and the veneers vs crowns vs composite bonding review (the new piece names the veneer-vs-crown substitution as one of the two most common procedure-substitution failures in overseas treatment, with the TOR review as the upstream procedural reading). No substantive findings on any of those five pieces were revised.

What is unchanged: Every previous finding, score, and bottom-line on the five affected pieces stands as previously published.

Affected pieces: Metal Dental Clinic, Da Nang; the dental tourism trust gap; the dental care access crisis; cross-border dental liability for Australian patients; veneers vs crowns vs composite bonding.

2026-05-09 (fourth same-day clinic review): Inbound-link updates to Greenfield Dental Clinic, Hanoi, Australian Dental Clinic, Hà Nội, Elite Dental, Ho Chi Minh City, Worldwide Dental & Plastic Surgery Hospital, Metal Dental Clinic, Da Nang, and the dental tourism trust gap long read

Type: Non-substantive cross-link insertions to accompany the same-day publication of the East Rose Dental Clinic, Ho Chi Minh City review.

Change: A single sentence pointing to the East Rose review was inserted into each of: the Greenfield review’s third-paragraph orientation paragraph (between the Australian Dental and Finding 1 transitions); the Australian Dental Clinic, Hà Nội review’s third-paragraph orientation; the Elite Dental, Ho Chi Minh City review’s plain-language verdict line; the Worldwide review’s closing-footer cross-reference paragraph; the Metal Dental Clinic Da Nang review’s closing-footer cross-reference paragraph; and the dental tourism trust gap long read’s closing companion-piece paragraph. No substantive findings on any of those six pieces were revised. The cross-links record that the East Rose FAIL turns on the credential-representation axis: the marketing translation of a short Harvard School of Dental Medicine continuing-education course into the credential phrase Harvard-trained chief dentist, which is the closest structural analogue, on a different overseas institution, to the Greenfield Finding 5 entry on the Bordeaux–Hanoi diploma’s marketing presentation.

What is unchanged: Every previous finding, score, and bottom-line on the six affected pieces stands as previously published.

Affected pieces: Greenfield Dental Clinic, Hanoi; Australian Dental Clinic, Hà Nội; Elite Dental, Ho Chi Minh City; Worldwide Dental & Plastic Surgery Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City; Metal Dental Clinic, Da Nang; the dental tourism trust gap.

2026-05-09 (third same-day extension): Greenfield Dental Clinic, Hanoi: registration and credentials review

Type: Material extension. The original FAIL finding stands and is sharpened, not revised.

Change: Added a new section to the body of the review titled Finding 5: The “University of Bordeaux 2” credential is a co-branded Vietnamese-delivered diploma, not a French degree, between Finding 4 and What this review is not. The new section documents that Greenfield Dental Clinic’s marketing presents the founder Dr. Tạ Hồng Nhung’s “Certificate in Implant & Restorative Surgery from University of Bordeaux 2 (2013)” in a form that implies French residency, French clinical placements, and a French dental specialty title, while the publicly available framework for the Bordeaux–Hanoi cooperation strongly indicates a Bordeaux–Hanoi Diplôme inter-universitaire (D.I.U.) in implantology delivered by the Université de Bordeaux’s UFR Sciences odontologiques in collaboration with Hanoi Medical University and co-administered with the Agence universitaire de la francophonie (AUF), with the in-person teaching delivered in Vietnam. The publication characterises the marketing presentation, not the underlying credential, as misleading. Question 6 added to the patient-question section asking the clinic to publish the exact diploma type, partner institutions on the joint enrolment record, city of in-person delivery, in-person teaching hours, supervised case count, and registering authority. Sources 11 and 12 added (Université de Bordeaux UFR Sciences odontologiques cooperation framework; Wikipedia on the 2014 merger consolidating Bordeaux 1, 2, and 4 into Université de Bordeaux). Update banner at the head of the piece extended to record the second same-day extension. Bottom line revised to incorporate Finding 5.

What is unchanged: Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, the original Finding 2 update on Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên’s Singae registration, and the Overall: FAIL finding all stand. The not-recommended-for-NZ/AU/US/UK/CA-patients posture stands. The conditional re-review on production of the bodies of evidence specified in the original piece, plus the new Question 6 evidence on the Bordeaux–Hanoi credential, stands.

What is open: the publication does not have, at the time of this update, a copy of the diploma transcript or the joint enrolment record for Dr. Tạ Hồng Nhung’s 2013 Bordeaux–Hanoi programme. The publication cannot characterise the credential as definitively a D.I.U. of the type described in the Bordeaux UFR Sciences odontologiques cooperation framework without that document. The publication characterises it as almost certainly such a credential on the strength of the publicly available framework alone. If Greenfield Dental Clinic produces the diploma transcript and it documents in-person residency in Bordeaux of meaningful duration, or a French dental specialty title registered with the Conseil national de l’Ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes, Finding 5 will be revised.

Affected piece: Greenfield Dental Clinic, Hanoi: registration and credentials review

2026-05-09 (later same day): Greenfield Dental Clinic, Hanoi: registration and credentials review

Type: Material extension. The original FAIL finding stands and is sharpened, not revised.

Change: Added a new section titled Update: the marketed implantologist’s actual registered clinic, found immediately above the closing footer of the original review, and an update banner at the head of the piece. The new section documents that three independent Vietnamese sources (Singae Dental Clinic’s own staff page at singaedental.vn, BookingCare at bookingcare.vn, and DentalTrip at dentaltrip.io) name Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên, the implantologist credited on Greenfield’s marketing with “5,000+ Successful Implant Cases,” as a registered clinician at Nha khoa Singae (Singae Dental Clinic), Đống Đa branch, Hanoi, with practising-licence number 026002/HNO-CCHN7 and implant-certificate number 170086/RHM-IMP, 10 years of stated experience, and 2,400+ implant cases, not the 5,000+ figure Greenfield publishes. Two consequences are recorded: (a) the implantologist’s own credentialed clinic publishes a case count roughly half the figure Greenfield markets for the same person, which moves Finding 1 from an arithmetic-of-plausibility argument to a direct contradiction between two clinics’ presentations of the same clinician; (b) the question raised by Finding 2 (why Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên does not appear on the Hanoi DOH document for the Greenfield clinic site) is now answered, with Reading B (visiting clinician with principal registered site elsewhere) corroborated as the likely reading. Sources 8, 9, 10 added to the source list.

What is unchanged: the original Findings 1, 2, 3, and 4 stand. The Overall: FAIL on the registration and credentials axis stands. The not-recommended-for-NZ/AU/US/UK/CA-patients posture stands. The conditional re-review on production of the four bodies of evidence specified in the original piece stands.

What is open: the publication will request from Hanoi Department of Health confirmation of whether practising-licence 026002/HNO-CCHN7 is currently registered at the Greenfield clinic site (95 Trung Hòa) in addition to, or instead of, the Singae site (Đống Đa). The answer will be published when on file.

Affected piece: Greenfield Dental Clinic, Hanoi: registration and credentials review

2026-05-07: Metal Dental Clinic, Da Nang: clinical review

Type: Material extension. No prior finding revised.

Change: Added a new section titled Open question: who is performing the procedures? between the overall scoring and the What would change this assessment section. The new section names a verification question raised by a Vietnamese-licensed dental colleague’s review of the clinic’s publicly available staffing presentation: the individual presented by the clinic as its clinician does not visibly appear, on visual comparison, as the operator in the procedure footage analysed in Categories 1, 2, and 3 of the original review. The publication has not, at the date of this update, completed a primary-source search of the Vietnamese Ministry of Health and provincial Department of Health (Da Nang) registries against each visible operator. The new section commits the publication to that primary-source check, names what the resolution of the check will and will not change about the existing scoring, and states what happens if the question cannot be resolved.

What is unchanged: the Category 1 (FAIL), Category 2 (FAIL), Category 3 (FAIL), Category 4 (CONCERN), and Category 5 (FAIL) scores are unchanged in this update. The Overall: FAIL finding is unchanged. The existing clinical findings stand on observable clinical-decision-making, procedure-execution, and infection-control evidence in the clinic’s own published footage, independently of the registration-status question.

What is open: the registration status of the individual operators visible in the published procedure footage. The publication will update this entry when the primary-source check is on file, or when a reasonable verification window has elapsed without a result, whichever comes first. An unanswerable question is itself a finding and will be named as such in subsequent re-reviews.

Affected piece: Metal Dental Clinic, Da Nang: clinical review