Greenfield Dental Clinic, Hanoi: registration and credentials review

Disclosure. Dr. Maloney has no commercial relationship with Greenfield Dental Clinic, Hanoi, with Công ty TNHH Nha khoa Greenfield, with Singae Dental Clinic, or with any individual named in this review. She did not receive payment, travel, accommodation, equipment, or any other consideration in connection with this piece. The publication’s standing disclosures are at /disclosures/. Last reviewed: 2026-05-09.

Update — 2026-05-09 (two same-day extensions). After this review was first published this morning, two additional bodies of evidence came to the publication’s attention. (1) Three independent Vietnamese sources were located that name Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên — the implantologist credited on Greenfield’s marketing with “5,000+ Successful Implant Cases” — as a registered clinician at a different clinic: Nha khoa Singae (Singae Dental Clinic), Đống Đa branch, Hanoi, under practising-licence number 026002/HNO-CCHN7 and implant-certificate number 170086/RHM-IMP. His own credentialed source publishes 2,400+ implant cases over 10 years of practice — not the 5,000+ figure Greenfield markets. New section Update — the marketed implantologist’s actual registered clinic, found documents this, below the Bottom line. (2) A new Finding 5 has been added to the body of the review on the marketing of Dr. Tạ Hồng Nhung’s “Certificate from University of Bordeaux 2 (2013)”: the credential almost certainly refers to a Bordeaux–Hanoi inter-university diploma (D.I.U.) in the Bordeaux UFR Sciences odontologiques cooperation framework with Hanoi Medical University, with the in-person teaching delivered in Vietnam under AUF auspices — not a French dental degree obtained by residency in Bordeaux. The publication characterises the marketing presentation, not the underlying credential, as misleading. The original FAIL finding is unchanged. Both updates tighten, rather than relax, the original concern.

I want to be clear about what this review is and is not. It is not a clinical assessment of patient outcomes — there is no procedure footage to score and there is no on-site visit. It is a desk review of three things: (1) the claims published on the clinic’s own marketing properties, (2) the Hanoi Department of Health registration document on file for this clinic site, and (3) the Vietnamese national business register entries for the company that operates it. Each is a primary source. The findings below are what those three sources, read against each other, plausibly mean.

This is the second review the publication has published about a Vietnamese dental clinic that markets to NZ and Australian patients. The first, the Metal Dental Clinic Da Nang review, turned on observable clinical-execution evidence in the clinic’s own published video footage. This one turns on a different axis: the gap between what a clinic asserts in its own marketing and what its national regulator has on file. A companion Hà Nội review on the same publishing day, the Australian Dental Clinic, Hà Nội review, turns on a third axis again: the gap between a country word in a clinic’s trade name and the credentials in the founder’s own published bio. A fourth same-day review, the East Rose Dental Clinic, Ho Chi Minh City review, turns on a fourth 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 to the Bordeaux–Hanoi finding (Finding 5 below) on a different overseas institution.

What the clinic asserts

Greenfield Dental Clinic operates two consumer-facing properties: the English-language site greenfield.clinic and the Vietnamese-language site nhakhoagreenfield.com. On both, the clinic presents a four-dentist team:

1. Dr. Tạ Hồng Nhung — described as the CEO and lead dentist, with Platinum Invisalign Provider status; orthodontics, implants, veneers, filler/Botox.
2. Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên — described as DDS and Implantologist. Bachelor of Dental Surgery from Hanoi Medical University; an advanced implant course in Tokyo; “5,000+ Successful Implant Cases” and “7 years of experience in dental implants” including All-on-4/6/8.
3. Dr. Trần Thị Giang — described as a Doctor of Dental Surgery, Specialist in Orthodontics & Aesthetics; orthodontics, veneers, endodontics, prosthodontics.
4. Dr. Lê Tố Như — described as a Doctor of Dental Surgery, Specialist in Endodontics & Prosthodontics.

Alongside the team, the clinic markets full-mouth implant rehabilitation in Vietnam under a 15–20 year international warranty, partnerships with named implant brands (Straumann, Nobel, Dentium, Ivoclar), and an all-inclusive dental tourism package that includes hotel accommodation for two and airport reception. The address on the public marketing site is “95 Trung Hoa, Yen Hoa, Hanoi, Vietnam.” No license number, no registration number, and no founding year are published on the consumer-facing About pages reviewed for this piece.

That is the published presentation. What follows is what the national registry actually says.

Finding 1 — The “5,000+ Successful Implant Cases” number is not arithmetically credible

Stated claim. Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên has “7 years of experience in dental implants” and has “completed over 5000 implants cases so far,” per the public marketing.

Why the math does not hold. Walk the claim through the pathway and the calendar.

A graduate of Hanoi Medical University earns a Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BS Răng Hàm Mặt) over six years. Under Vietnam’s Law on Medical Examination and Treatment, before a clinician practises independently they complete a structured period of supervised practice (thời gian thực hành — typically eighteen months) to obtain the practising scope (chứng chỉ hành nghề; from 1 January 2024, giấy phép hành nghề), which is administered locally through the provincial Department of Health — for Hanoi, the Sở Y tế Hà Nội practitioner-registration portal . Implant placement is built on top of general odontostomatology — typically structured postgraduate training plus mentored clinical experience before a clinician is performing complex full-arch cases like All-on-4/6/8 independently. The pathway is published; it does not start at graduation.

Even if the seven-year window is taken at face value and treated as seven years of independent surgical placement, the arithmetic is the test:

• 5,000 implants ÷ 7 years ≈ 714 implants per year.
• Assume approximately 240 working days per year. That is roughly three implant placements every working day, every working day, for seven years uninterrupted — no annual leave, no consultations, no aftercare appointments, no prosthetic visits, no continuing-education days, no surgical recovery days.
• A single implant placement realistically consumes one to two hours of chair time. Three placements per day is three to six hours of pure surgery, leaving no chair time for the consultations, scans, prosthetic restorations, and re-evaluations that make up the rest of an implantologist’s working week.

For comparison, US dental-practice benchmarks describe a high-volume implant provider as one generating $700,000–$800,000 per year in production at $3,000–$6,000 per implant — which corresponds to roughly 150–250 implants per provider per year, not 700-plus. The most established Vietnamese implant centres, where senior clinicians have practised for fifteen-plus years, do not advertise five-figure case counts of this kind; they advertise specific protocol experience and named training affiliations.

There are then three ways the number could be true, and none of them is the way it is being marketed:

1. The 5,000 figure is the clinic’s lifetime placement count across all clinicians. If so, the marketing should attribute it to the clinic, not to a named individual, and the clinic’s own registration timeline (see Finding 3 below) constrains it.
2. The 5,000 figure includes implants placed at every previous workplace the named clinician has ever rotated through. If so, it should not be presented as a track record at this clinic site.
3. The 5,000 figure is supported by an actual clinical record that documents which procedures, on which patients, on which dates, with which follow-up. If so, the clinic can produce that record on request, broken down by procedure type (single-tooth, multiple, All-on-X) with surgeon-of-record attribution.

The clinic does not publish any of those breakdowns. It publishes the headline number.

What this means for a patient. A claim that fails the arithmetic test on the clinic’s own assumptions is, at best, a marketing approximation; at worst, a number with no underlying record. Either way, it is not a verifiable clinical track record, and a patient making an AUD 25,000–45,000 full-arch implant decision is being asked to trust it.

Finding 2 — The Hanoi Department of Health document on file lists one registered dentist at this clinic site

This is the load-bearing finding of the review.

The publication has reviewed the official Hanoi Department of Health document headed “Sở Y tế Hà Nội — Phòng Nghiệp vụ Y” and dated 8 July 2025, file number H26.19-250625-0005, archived locally at the publication’s primary-source archive and accessible on the Hanoi government’s practitioner-records portal (tracuuqlhn.hanoi.gov.vn) (archived snapshot) . The document is a formal proposal (đề xuất) by the Phòng Nghiệp vụ Y to publish on the Sở Y tế website the registration changes for “Phòng khám chuyên khoa Răng Hàm Mặt trực thuộc Công ty TNHH Nha khoa Greenfield” at “Tầng 1,2,3 số 95 phố Trung Hòa, Phường Yên Hòa, Quận Cầu Giấy, Thành phố Hà Nội” — the same building the public marketing site lists as the clinic’s address. The document is signed by the legal representative Tạ Thị Hồng Nhung as Giám đốc and bears the company seal of Công ty TNHH Nha khoa Greenfield.

It contains two annexes.

Annex A — Personnel newly registering to practise at this clinic site (Danh sách nhân sự đăng ký hành nghề bổ sung):

Annex B — Personnel ceasing to practise at this clinic site (Danh sách nhân sự thôi đăng ký hành nghề):

What that document plainly says, read as written:

• The only practitioner the Hanoi Department of Health document on file lists at this clinic site, as of mid-2025, is Dr. Trần Thị Giang, scope of practice “Khám/chữa bệnh chuyên khoa Răng Hàm Mặt” (general odontostomatology — examination and treatment in oral and maxillofacial medicine).
• The previously registered dentist on file at this address was Dr. Hà Mạnh Hưng, who has ceased to practise here. Dr. Hà Mạnh Hưng’s name does not appear on the clinic’s public marketing site at all.
• Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên — the marketed implantologist with the 5,000-case figure — does not appear on this document.
• Dr. Tạ Hồng Nhung — the marketed CEO and lead dentist — does not appear in the practitioner annexes of this document. She signs the document as Giám đốc, i.e. as legal representative of the LLC, which is a corporate role rather than a registered clinical scope of practice at this clinic site.
• Dr. Lê Tố Như — the marketed endodontics and prosthodontics specialist — does not appear on this document.

It is necessary to be careful about what this document does and does not establish. The document is a 2025 update — specifically, it records one practitioner adding her registration at this site and one practitioner ceasing his. It is not, on its own, the full historical roster of every clinician who has ever held a registration at this address. It is possible, in principle, that some of the marketed names are registered to this site under a separate filing the publication has not yet seen. The Hanoi Department of Health practitioner-search portal does not, at the time of this review, expose a single consolidated public roster per clinic that the publication has been able to retrieve in full. The conclusion below is therefore framed against what this document does and does not show, not against a theoretical complete registry the publication does not have access to.

What the document does establish. As of mid-2025, on the most recent publicly published Hanoi DOH filing for this clinic site that the publication has located, the only practitioner whose name, CCHN number, and scope are on file as registered to practise here is Dr. Trần Thị Giang. The general odontostomatology scope she is registered for does not, in itself, constitute a registered scope for surgical implant placement; the implant scope is a separate add-on under Vietnamese practice-licensing rules. No registered practitioner with a surgical implant scope is named in the document.

What the document does not establish. It does not establish that any of the other named clinicians on the public marketing site — Đỗ Như Chuyên, Tạ Hồng Nhung, Lê Tố Như — are unregistered, unqualified, or operating illegally. The publication is not making that claim. The claim it is making is narrower and harder to refute: the gap between a four-dentist marketing roster, headlined by a 5,000-implant surgeon, and the one practitioner named in the most recent regulatory filing on file is a gap the clinic has not, on its own publicly available materials, closed. A clinic confident in its credentialed roster publishes the giấy phép hoạt động number, the practitioner registry, and the CCHN of every named clinician on the consumer-facing About page. Greenfield Dental Clinic does not.

Two readings of the gap are possible, and the clinic — not the patient — owns the burden of clarifying which is true:

Reading A. The marketed implant specialist and the marketed CEO are clinicians whose registration at this site exists somewhere in the regulator’s file system but is not produced in the disclosure batch the publication has reviewed. In which case the clinic should be able to produce the relevant filings on request.

Reading B. Some of the marketed names are visiting clinicians, contracted from elsewhere, or photographed-and-bio’d for trust signal without a continuous registered employment relationship to this specific clinic site. This is a known pattern in Vietnamese clinics chasing international patients: a single registered “responsible practitioner” (người chịu trách nhiệm chuyên môn) plus a marketed roster that is not the same as the registered roster.

The two readings are not equivalent for an international patient. Under Reading A, the clinic can resolve the question by producing documentation. Under Reading B, the patient who flies in for full-arch implant surgery and wakes up after sedation does not, in any verifiable sense, know who placed the implants — and if a complication later requires a complaint to Sở Y tế, the complaint is about a procedure performed by a clinician the registry has no record of at this site.

Finding 3 — The clinic entity at 95 Trung Hòa is approximately twelve months old

There are, on the Vietnamese national business register, two coexisting LLC entries bearing the Greenfield Dental name, both with the same legal representative (Tạ Thị Hồng Nhung):

• Công ty TNHH Nha khoa Greenfield, tax code 0110015087, business licence dated 31 May 2022, registered address Tầng 5, Toà nhà Leadvisors Place, 41A phố Lý Thái Tổ, phường Lý Thái Tổ, quận Hoàn Kiếm, Hà Nội.
• Công ty TNHH Nha khoa Greenfield, business code 0111059256, business licence dated 21 May 2025, registered address Tầng 1-2-3, số 95 phố Trung Hòa, phường Yên Hoà, quận Cầu Giấy, Hà Nội — the same address as the public marketing site.

What this means in plain language: the legal entity that operates the Trung Hòa clinic — the building the public marketing site shows in its photographs — was registered with the Hanoi business authority on 21 May 2025. That is approximately twelve months ago as of the date of this review (9 May 2026). A separate Greenfield entity at a different Hanoi address (Hoàn Kiếm) has existed since 2022.

Whether the two entities are part of an intentional holding-company / clinic-entity split, or whether the 2025 entity replaced the 2022 entity at a new address, is a question the public business register does not answer in full. What it does answer is the question that matters for the marketed implant figure: the legal entity at 95 Trung Hòa cannot, by itself, have produced 5,000 implant placements on-site, because it has only existed for about twelve months. If the 5,000 figure is meant to attribute to a clinician — Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên — across employers and clinic sites that pre-date this entity, the marketing should say so, and should disclose where and when the cases were performed. The current presentation does not.

The 15–20 year international warranty markets alongside the same 5,000-case figure. A warranty whose stated duration outlives the clinic entity offering it — by an order of magnitude — is, at minimum, a warranty whose enforcement mechanism the clinic has not explained. Under what jurisdiction? Honoured by which legal entity if the LLC dissolves or restructures? Covering which failure modes (peri-implantitis, prosthetic fracture, bone loss, screw fracture, biological failure)? With what dispute resolution? The published warranty answers none of these questions. A patient who relies on a 20-year warranty offered by a 12-month-old LLC is relying on a promise the entity is not, on the public record, configured to keep.

Finding 4 — The clinic does not publish the documentation any compliant Vietnamese clinic can produce on request

The Vietnamese practice-licensing system, particularly under the reforms of the 2023 Law on Medical Examination and Treatment (which converted chứng chỉ hành nghề to a five-year-renewable giấy phép hành nghề from 1 January 2024), produces a specific set of documents that a compliant clinic has on hand:

1. The giấy phép hoạt động (operating licence) of the clinic, issued at provincial level by Sở Y tế.
2. The annex list of every registered practitioner at the clinic site, with each practitioner’s CCHN/giấy phép hành nghề number and registered scope.
3. For each named clinician with a surgical implant scope, the specific scope authorisation that permits implant placement.
4. The named người chịu trách nhiệm chuyên môn (responsible technical person) for the clinic and for each registered scope.

A clinic confident in its clinical roster publishes these documents on its consumer-facing site, or produces them on request to a prospective patient. Greenfield Dental Clinic does not, on the public marketing properties reviewed, publish a giấy phép hoạt động number, a CCHN number for any of the four marketed clinicians, or the name of the implant scope’s responsible technical person. What is published is the photograph, the bio, the headline figure, and the warranty.

The asymmetry matters. A patient choosing between Greenfield and a competitor in Hanoi, or between Greenfield and a domestic clinic in Sydney or Auckland, is being asked to rely on the public presentation. The public presentation is missing the documentation that the regulator’s own scheme produces.

Finding 5 — The “University of Bordeaux 2” credential is a co-branded Vietnamese-delivered diploma, not a French degree

This finding is added in the same-day update of 2026-05-09 on additional evidence that came to the publication’s attention after first publication.

Stated claim. Greenfield Dental Clinic’s public marketing presents the founder and lead clinician, Dr. Tạ Hồng Nhung, as holding a “Certificate in Implant & Restorative Surgery from University of Bordeaux 2 (2013)”, alongside a Master of Odonto-Stomatology from Hanoi Medical University (2017), continuing-training certificates in Clinical Orthodontics from Pham Ngoc Thach Medical University (2019) and Botulinum Toxin injection from Ho Chi Minh City Dermatology Hospital (2020), and Platinum Invisalign Provider status (2022).

What “University of Bordeaux 2” almost certainly refers to. The University of Bordeaux’s UFR Sciences odontologiques (Faculty of Dental Sciences) operates a long-standing cooperation framework with Vietnamese faculties of odonto-stomatology, including Hanoi Medical University’s Institute of Odonto-Stomatology and the Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology of Ho Chi Minh City. The cooperation involves several French faculties — Marseille, Bordeaux, Lille, Nice, Strasbourg, and the Catholic University of Louvain — and is co-administered through the Agence universitaire de la francophonie (AUF). It produces Diplômes inter-universitaires (D.I.U.) — inter-university diplomas — in dental specialties including implantology, integrated into the Vietnamese Master’s pathway and recognised by Vietnamese university authorities.

The format of these D.I.U. is the load-bearing fact for this finding. They are taught in Vietnam by a teaching team that includes French faculty visiting Vietnamese partner institutions and Vietnamese faculty teaching the same syllabus. The in-person teaching is delivered in Vietnam, not in Bordeaux. The closest analogous Bordeaux-resident programme — the Diplôme d’Université Chirurgie Implantaire et Parodontale (DUCIP) — is an 80-hour, one-year continuing-education programme that combines in-person and distance teaching, and is itself a continuing-education diploma rather than a French dental degree.

In other words: a Vietnamese clinician who completed a Bordeaux–Hanoi D.I.U. in implant and restorative surgery in 2013 completed a structured continuing-education diploma, in Vietnam, in collaboration with Bordeaux faculty, recognised by Vietnamese university authorities and the AUF. That is a real qualification, and the publication is not characterising it as fake. The publication is characterising the marketing presentation of it as misleading on the question that matters to a foreign patient: where the clinician studied, by whom she was taught, and what kind of qualification she holds.

Why the marketing presentation is misleading.

The phrase “Certificate from University of Bordeaux 2 (2013)” — placed in the same sentence as a Master of Odonto-Stomatology from Hanoi Medical University, on the consumer-facing page of a clinic that markets primarily to NZ, AU, US, UK, and Canadian patients — implies, without saying so, three things that are not true:

1. That the clinician studied in France. The natural English-reader inference from “University of Bordeaux 2 (2013)” is residency in Bordeaux for the duration of the programme, French clinical placements, French examinations. A patient in Sydney comparing a “Hanoi-and-Bordeaux-trained implantologist” to a “Hanoi-only-trained implantologist” assumes the first is a clinician who has worked in a French hospital system to a French standard. That is the inference the marketing depends on for it to add value.
2. That the qualification is a French dental degree. A “Certificate in Implant & Restorative Surgery from University of Bordeaux 2” reads as a French dental specialty credential. The actual qualification is a D.I.U. or equivalent inter-university continuing-education diploma — a structured short programme, not a French specialty title (the French dental specialty titles in surgery and prosthodontics are administered through the Conseil national de l’Ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes, not through D.I.U. coursework).
3. That “University of Bordeaux 2” is a current institution. Université Bordeaux 2 (Victor Segalen) was a separate university until the 2014 merger that consolidated Bordeaux 1, Bordeaux 2, and Bordeaux 4 into the unified Université de Bordeaux. A 2013-dated “University of Bordeaux 2” credential is internally consistent with the institutional history; the issue is not the date but the marketing decision, in 2026, to keep the older institutional name in foreground rather than the actual qualification type. A clinic publishing “DIU Bordeaux–Hanoi (Implantologie), 2013” would be telling the patient what the credential is. A clinic publishing “Certificate from University of Bordeaux 2 (2013)” is telling the patient what it sounds like.

Why this matters for the patient making the implant decision.

A clinician who completed a structured Bordeaux–Hanoi D.I.U. in implant surgery has post-registration continuing-education depth in implant placement. That is genuinely useful, and the publication is not arguing otherwise. What the publication is arguing is that the marketing decision to present a Vietnamese-delivered, Vietnamese-coursework, Vietnamese-clinical co-branded inter-university diploma as a “Certificate from University of Bordeaux 2” is the same family of marketing decision as presenting the implantologist’s 2,400-case Singae count as Greenfield’s 5,000-case figure. Both decisions take a real underlying credential and inflate its presentation in a direction that the foreign patient cannot easily verify, and that the foreign patient is being asked to make a five-figure surgical decision on the strength of.

The publication has applied the same standard to comparator clinics. The honest version of this credential — “D.I.U. Implantology, Bordeaux–Hanoi joint programme, 2013, with the in-person teaching delivered in Vietnam in collaboration with Université Bordeaux 2 (now Université de Bordeaux), Université Hanoi-Médicine, and the Agence universitaire de la francophonie” — is the version a patient can evaluate. The version Greenfield publishes is the version a patient cannot.

What would change this finding. If Dr. Tạ Hồng Nhung produces evidence of (a) a residency or in-person clinical placement in Bordeaux, France, of meaningful duration during the 2013 programme; or (b) a French specialty title (e.g., DESCO en chirurgie orale, attestation de formation spécialisée) registered with the Conseil national de l’Ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes, the credential would be re-characterised in the next re-review. If the credential is, as the publicly available framework strongly suggests, a Bordeaux–Hanoi D.I.U. delivered in Vietnam, the finding stands and the clinic is asked to publish the credential in a form a patient can interpret without having to research the Bordeaux–Hanoi cooperation framework herself.

What this review is not

This review is not a clinical assessment of patient outcomes at Greenfield Dental Clinic. The publication has not reviewed clinical photographs of completed cases, post-treatment radiographs, or first-hand accounts from named patients who have been treated at this site. It does not, on this evidence, score the clinic against the clinical-standards framework’s Categories 1 (Clinical decision-making) and 2 (Procedure execution) — which require evidence of specific clinical decisions and specific procedures, of the kind that was visible in the published procedure footage analysed in the Metal Dental Clinic Da Nang review.

What it does assess — and what it scores FAIL on — is the registration and credentials axis. That axis is upstream of clinical outcomes. A patient cannot evaluate procedure execution at a clinic until she can establish who, in the regulatory record, is permitted to perform the procedure she has been quoted for. On the documents on file, Greenfield Dental Clinic has not made that establishment available to the public. The implant surgeon she has been sold cannot, on the publicly reviewable record, be matched to a registered surgical implant scope at this clinic site.

The publication will revisit and re-score this clinic if the clinic produces the documentation requested in the section below. The Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 framework will apply if and when patient-outcome evidence becomes available. The current finding is on the registration axis only, and is sufficient on its own to produce a not-recommended posture for international patients.

What would change this assessment

On the 5,000-implant claim (Finding 1): A breakdown of the 5,000 figure by procedure type (single-tooth, multiple-tooth, All-on-4, All-on-6, All-on-8), date range, and clinic site of performance, attributable to Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên as surgeon-of-record, would convert the claim from a marketing headline into a verifiable record. If the breakdown is provided and is internally consistent with a realistic full-time implant practice over the years stated, the finding revises.

On the registry gap (Finding 2): Production by the clinic of the complete current giấy phép hoạt động annex for the Trung Hòa clinic, listing every clinician registered to practise at this site with CCHN/giấy phép hành nghề number and registered scope, would establish whether each marketed name is or is not on the regulatory record. If every marketed clinician — and specifically Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên with a registered surgical implant scope — appears on the current annex, Finding 2 closes. If not, Finding 2 stands and a separate, dated regulatory finding is added.

On the entity timeline (Finding 3): A clear public statement by the clinic of which legal entity (tax code 0110015087 or business code 0111059256) holds the giấy phép hoạt động for this clinic site, and which entity is the warrantor on the 15–20 year warranty, would resolve the entity ambiguity. Where the warrantor is the 2025 entity, a statement of how the warranty survives the legal entity’s restructuring or dissolution is necessary for the warranty to be a credible commitment to the patient.

On the documentation gap (Finding 4): Publishing the giấy phép hoạt động number, the practitioner registry annex, and the CCHN of every named clinician on the consumer-facing About page would close the documentation gap. This is what compliant Vietnamese clinics do.

If the clinic produces all four bodies of evidence above, the FAIL finding on the registration and credentials axis closes and the publication moves to the next axis: clinical outcomes. Until then, it does not.

What an international patient should ask in writing before deposit

If you are considering Greenfield Dental Clinic, Hanoi — or any clinic with a public presentation that asserts more than its public documentation supports — these are the specific questions to put in writing, with a written response required, before any deposit is paid:

1. Please provide the giấy phép hoạt động (operating licence) number of Phòng khám chuyên khoa Răng Hàm Mặt trực thuộc Công ty TNHH Nha khoa Greenfield, the issuing authority, the date issued, and the most recent annex listing all registered practitioners at this clinic site with their CCHN/giấy phép hành nghề number and registered scope of practice.

2. Of the four dentists listed on greenfield.clinic and nhakhoagreenfield.com, which are currently registered to practise at the 95 Trung Hòa site under that giấy phép, and what is each one’s CCHN/giấy phép hành nghề number, registered scope, and date of most recent renewal?

3. For Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên specifically: under which CCHN/giấy phép hành nghề number does he practise surgical implant placement at this clinic site? Is implant placement an explicitly registered scope on his licence? At which clinic sites and in which date ranges were the “5,000+ Successful Implant Cases” performed? Please provide the breakdown by procedure type and surgeon-of-record attribution.

4. Who is the người chịu trách nhiệm chuyên môn (responsible technical person) for surgical implant placement at this clinic? Is that person personally registered with Sở Y tế Hà Nội for surgical implant placement at the 95 Trung Hòa site?

5. Which legal entity holds the giấy phép hoạt động for this clinic site — Công ty TNHH Nha khoa Greenfield (tax code 0110015087, registered Hoàn Kiếm 2022) or Công ty TNHH Nha khoa Greenfield (business code 0111059256, registered Cầu Giấy 2025)? Which entity is the warrantor on the 15–20 year international warranty? If the warrantor entity dissolves or restructures during the warranty period, by what mechanism is the warranty preserved?

6. For Dr. Tạ Hồng Nhung’s “Certificate in Implant & Restorative Surgery from University of Bordeaux 2 (2013)”: please provide the exact name of the diploma (e.g., D.U., D.I.U., D.E.S.C.O., A.E.U.), the partner institutions on the joint enrolment record, the city or cities in which the in-person teaching was delivered, the total in-person teaching hours during 2013, the supervised clinical case count completed during the programme, and the registering authority that issued the certificate. If the qualification is a Bordeaux–Hanoi inter-university diploma in which the in-person teaching was delivered in Vietnam, please publish that on the consumer-facing About page in those exact terms.

A clinic willing to answer all six in writing is a clinic in a different epistemic posture from a clinic that responds with photographs of the implantologist and a brochure. The same six questions, addressed to a competent and compliant Vietnamese clinic, should be answered in days, not weeks. The point is not that the questions are aggressive; it is that they are the minimum a patient flying in from Sydney or Auckland with a five-figure quote in hand has the right to ask.

Bottom line

The publication does not recommend Greenfield Dental Clinic, Hanoi, to any NZ, AU, US, UK, or Canadian patient on the basis of the public claims as currently presented. The recommendation is conditional on the registration and credentials axis, which is the axis that fails. The clinic markets a four-dentist team headlined by an implantologist with a 5,000-case figure that does not survive arithmetic on the clinic’s own stated career timeline. The Hanoi Department of Health document on file lists one registered dentist at this clinic site, and the marketed implant surgeon is not named in the practitioner annex. The legal entity at the clinic’s address is approximately twelve months old. The documentation that a compliant Vietnamese clinic produces on request is not published on the consumer-facing site. The founder’s flagship “University of Bordeaux 2” credential, on the publicly available framework for Bordeaux–Hanoi cooperation, is most likely a Vietnamese-delivered inter-university diploma marketed under the older French institutional name in a way that is misleading to a patient who has not researched the cooperation framework.

None of these findings, individually, would be sufficient to fail a clinic. Clinics rebrand, entities restructure, registry filings lag the public roster, headline marketing figures are sometimes loose, and credentials are sometimes presented in shorthand. What produces the FAIL is the pattern — a marketing presentation that, on five separate axes, takes a real underlying fact (a clinician, a clinic, a legal entity, a warranty, a credential) and inflates the public version of it in the direction the foreign patient cannot easily verify. The pattern is what is most material to the patient considering surgical implant placement, and the patient considering it is being asked to evaluate the inflation, not the fact: who, on the public record, is the dentist she will wake up to, and is the credential she has been shown the credential it sounds like.

If the clinic produces the four bodies of evidence specified above, the publication will re-review and revise. Until then, the answer to the question “is this clinic safe to fly to from New Zealand or Australia for full-arch implant surgery” is, on the documents on file: the question cannot be answered in the affirmative on the basis of what the clinic has chosen to publish.

Update — the marketed implantologist’s actual registered clinic, found

This section is added in the same-day update of 2026-05-09. It does not replace the original FAIL finding; it sharpens it. After this review was first published this morning, three independent Vietnamese-language sources came to the publication’s attention that locate Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên — the implantologist credited on Greenfield’s public marketing with the headline “5,000+ Successful Implant Cases” — as a registered clinician at a different clinic in Hanoi.

That clinic is Nha khoa Singae (Singae Dental Clinic), Đống Đa branch, Hanoi. The three sources are mutually corroborating.

Source A — Singae Dental Clinic’s own staff page publishes its Hanoi-branch implant team in a format that a compliant Vietnamese clinic uses: name, role, practising-licence number (số chứng chỉ hành nghề), and implant-certification number. Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên appears third on the Hanoi list, with:

• Practising licence: 026002/HNO-CCHN7
• Implant certificate: 170086/RHM-IMP
• Stated experience: 10 years
• Stated implant case count: 2,400+

His colleagues on the same Singae Hanoi list — the head of the implant department (Dr. Nguyễn Thành Công, 17 years, 3,250+ cases, licence 026434/HNO-CCHN, implant cert Imp15.19002) and Dr. Phạm Tiến Dũng (Specialist Level 1, 12 years, 2,680+ cases, licence 005820/QNG-CCHN, implant cert C26.06/ImplantK03-01) — are published in the same structured form. This is what a credentialed clinic roster looks like. It contains licence numbers, scope authorisations, and case counts that can be cross-referenced against the provincial registry.

Source B — BookingCare, a Vietnamese consumer-facing healthcare booking platform, lists Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên under “Nơi công tác” (place of work) as “Nha khoa Singae (chi nhánh Đống Đa - Hà Nội)” — Singae Dental Clinic, Đống Đa branch, Hanoi. The platform publishes 10 years’ experience and 2,400+ implant cases, consistent with Source A.

Source C — DentalTrip, a third-party international dental-tourism directory, names the same affiliation — Singae Dental Clinic, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City — and the same implant certificate (170086/RHM-IMP) and practising licence (variously transcribed as 0260/HNO-CCHN7 or 026002/HNO-CCHN7), with the same 10-year, 2,400+ implant case count.

What this evidence does, read against the original Findings 1 and 2 of this review:

1. The “5,000+” Greenfield figure is now corroborated as inflated by the implantologist’s own credentialed clinic. Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên’s actual registered clinic publishes his implant case count as 2,400+ over 10 years of practice. Greenfield’s marketing publishes the same clinician’s case count as “5,000+” with “7 years of experience in dental implants.” The two sets of numbers do not refer to the same career. They refer to the same person. One of them is wrong, and the wrong one is the one Greenfield is selling. The Greenfield figure is roughly double the figure the implantologist’s own registered clinic publishes. This is no longer an arithmetic-of-plausibility argument; it is a direct contradiction between two clinics’ presentations of the same clinician.

2. The reason Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên does not appear on the Hanoi DOH document for the Greenfield clinic site is now answered. He is not absent from the document because of a paperwork lag, an unrelated filing the publication has not yet seen, or a category of practitioner the document does not enumerate. He is absent because his registered clinical site is not Greenfield Dental Clinic. It is Singae Dental Clinic, Đống Đa. Reading B of the original Finding 2 — “some of the marketed names are visiting clinicians, contracted from elsewhere, or photographed-and-bio’d for trust signal without a continuous registered employment relationship to this specific clinic site” — is now the corroborated reading. Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên is, on the publicly available registered roster, a Singae clinician. If he places implants at Greenfield Dental Clinic, 95 Trung Hòa, he does so as a visiting clinician under arrangements the publication cannot, on the documents available, see — and which Greenfield’s consumer-facing marketing does not disclose.

3. The patient who flies in for full-arch implant surgery at Greenfield, on the strength of the implantologist’s bio, is being shown a clinician whose principal registered clinical home is a different clinic. That is a material fact a patient making an AUD 25,000–45,000 decision is entitled to. A clinician practising at multiple sites is not unusual in Vietnam or anywhere else. A clinician whose principal registered site is not the clinic selling the procedure to international patients, and whose case-count attribution at the selling clinic exceeds the count his registered clinic publishes for him, is the specific situation the patient deserves to know about before deposit.

What this update does not establish. It does not establish that Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên never operates at Greenfield Dental Clinic. It does not establish a regulatory violation by him personally. It does not establish that he is unqualified — on Singae’s own credentialed presentation, he is licensed (026002/HNO-CCHN7) with an explicit implant-scope certification (170086/RHM-IMP). The claim this update makes is narrower: he is registered at Singae, not at Greenfield, and Greenfield’s public marketing presents him as the in-house implantologist of Greenfield without disclosing the affiliation that Singae’s own staff page, BookingCare, and DentalTrip all confirm.

The verifiable next step. The publication will request from Sở Y tế Hà Nội — under the practitioner-search mechanism on the Hanoi DOH portal — confirmation that practising-licence 026002/HNO-CCHN7 is currently registered at the Greenfield site (95 Trung Hòa) as well as at, or instead of, the Singae site (Đống Đa). If the answer is that he is registered at both sites, the affiliation is dual and Greenfield should disclose it. If the answer is that he is registered only at Singae, then any implant placement he performs at the Greenfield premises is occurring outside his current registered scope-of-practice site, which is a Sở Y tế-level question. Either answer is reportable. The publication will publish the answer when it has it.

The original FAIL finding stands and tightens. The four-dentist Greenfield marketing roster, headlined by a 5,000-case figure that the implantologist’s own registered clinic does not publish, set against a Hanoi DOH document that lists one Greenfield-registered dentist who is not the marketed implantologist, with two coexisting LLCs and a 12-month-old clinic entity, in the absence of any published giấy phép hoạt động number or practitioner registry on the consumer-facing site — that is the picture, and it has not improved on the additional evidence. It has gotten more specific, and the specificity makes it harder, not easier, for the clinic to rebut.

Methodology for this publication’s clinic reviews is at /methodology/. The five-category clinical-standards framework, of which this review applies the registration-and-credentials axis only, is at the clinical-standards framework page. The companion clinic review, scoring patient-outcome evidence on a different Vietnamese clinic, is at the Metal Dental Clinic Da Nang review. The same registration-and-credentials axis applied to a Ho Chi Minh City clinic where the load-bearing claims corroborate on primary or near-primary sources outside the clinic’s own marketing surface — and the framework returns PASS, with named gaps — is at the Elite Dental, Ho Chi Minh City review. For the same axis returning a MIXED finding on a 100%-foreign-invested three-site clinic operating in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City — PASS on a foreign-trained founder credential and a publicly searchable named technical-medical-director, with a CONCERN on the British Virgin Islands corporate structure that the consumer-facing surface does not surface in the warranty-decision context — see the Westcoast International Dental Clinic, Vietnam review. The framework returns PASS, MIXED, and FAIL on documented evidence; the contrast between the findings is what the framework is for. The structural reasons international patients cannot easily distinguish a clinic with a registered roster from a clinic with a marketed roster are documented in the dental tourism trust gap. The country-by-country cost reference, including the price ranges Hanoi clinics quote against, is at the dental implant costs by country page. For the weekly read of the regulatory record on cross-border dental care, see This Week in Dental Tourism. Standing disclosures are at /disclosures/.

Sources

1. Greenfield Dental Clinic public marketing site, domain greenfield.clinic. Reviewed 2026-05-09. The publication does not link to clinic marketing sites; the domain is named for traceability.
2. Nha khoa Greenfield public marketing site, domain nhakhoagreenfield.com. Reviewed 2026-05-09. The publication does not link to clinic marketing sites; the domain is named for traceability.
3. Sở Y tế Hà Nội — Phòng Nghiệp vụ Y. Đề xuất Đăng tải Đăng ký hành nghề — có thay đổi về người hành nghề trong quá trình hoạt động (Thôi đăng ký hành nghề), Phòng khám chuyên khoa Răng Hàm Mặt trực thuộc Công ty TNHH Nha khoa Greenfield. File H26.19-250625-0005. 8 July 2025. Primary source archived locally at /documents/clinic-reviews/greenfield-dental-hanoi/hanoi-doh-greenfield-2025-07-08.pdf; upstream at tracuuqlhn.hanoi.gov.vn (archived snapshot) .
4. Vietnam national business register — Công ty TNHH Nha khoa Greenfield, tax code 0110015087, business licence 31 May 2022, registered Hoàn Kiếm. Reviewed 2026-05-09.
5. Vietnam national business register — Công ty TNHH Nha khoa Greenfield, business code 0111059256, business licence 21 May 2025, registered Cầu Giấy. Reviewed 2026-05-09.
6. Vietnam Law on Medical Examination and Treatment 2023 (effective 1 January 2024). Published by Bộ Y tế (Ministry of Health), Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The publication does not link to non-allow-listed legal-text portals; the law is named for traceability.
7. Sở Y tế Hà Nội — Đăng ký hành nghề (practitioner-registration portal). soyte.hanoi.gov.vn .
8. Update sources, added 2026-05-09. Singae Dental Clinic public staff page (domain singaedental.vn) listing Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên on the Hanoi-branch implant team with practising-licence number 026002/HNO-CCHN7 and implant certificate 170086/RHM-IMP, 10 years of stated experience, 2,400+ implant cases. Reviewed 2026-05-09. The publication does not link to clinic marketing sites; the domain is named for traceability.
9. Update source, added 2026-05-09. BookingCare consumer-facing healthcare booking platform — profile of Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên (URL slug bac-si-nha-si-do-nhu-chuyen-i5110, identifier i5110, domain bookingcare.vn) listing Nơi công tác (place of work) as “Nha khoa Singae (chi nhánh Đống Đa - Hà Nội)” with 10 years of stated experience and 2,400+ implant cases, education Hanoi Medical University Department of Odonto-Stomatology. Reviewed 2026-05-09. The publication does not link to consumer-marketing booking platforms; the source is named for traceability.
10. Update source, added 2026-05-09. DentalTrip international dental-tourism directory — profile of Dr. Đỗ Như Chuyên (identifier d2467, domain dentaltrip.io) naming clinic affiliation as Singae Dental Clinic, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, with implant certificate 170086/RHM-IMP and practising licence transcribed as 0260/HNO-CCHN7 (consistent with Singae’s own 026002/HNO-CCHN7 modulo a transcription discrepancy). Reviewed 2026-05-09. The publication does not link to dental-tourism directory sites; the source is named for traceability.
11. Finding 5 source, added 2026-05-09. Université de Bordeaux — Collège sciences de la santé, UFR Sciences odontologiques, public-domain documentation of the Diplôme d’Université Chirurgie Implantaire et Parodontale (DUCIP) and related D.U./D.I.U. continuing-education programmes — including the cooperation framework with Vietnamese faculties of odonto-stomatology in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, the Agence universitaire de la francophonie (AUF) co-administration, and the in-Vietnam delivery of the in-person teaching component. Programme details: 80 hours of teaching across one academic year, combining in-person and distance components, summer hospital-university internships in Vietnam in partnership with the faculties of Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi. Reviewed 2026-05-09. Domains: u-bordeaux.fr and auf.org. The publication does not link to non-allow-listed institutional sites; the framework is named for traceability.
12. Finding 5 source, added 2026-05-09. Wikipedia article on the Université Bordeaux Segalen (Bordeaux 2) and the 2014 merger that consolidated Bordeaux 1, Bordeaux 2, and Bordeaux 4 into the unified Université de Bordeaux. Reviewed 2026-05-09.