Rejuvie Dental Bali, Kuta (Legian), Indonesia: clinical review

Disclosure. No payment, travel, accommodation, equipment, or other consideration was received in connection with this review. The same five-category clinical-standards framework applied to every other clinic in this series has been applied without adjustment. The publication’s full standing disclosures are at /disclosures/.

Patient accounts: documented clinical failures

Account 1 — Google review, username Mark Mcmenamin (Local Guide), approximately late 2025:

The patient attended Rejuvie Dental Bali for multiple implants and crowns. Post-treatment complications included:

• Implants falling out with bone loss.
• A screw falling out of one implant, which was presumably swallowed.
• Two major infections requiring medical intervention, attributed to unhygienic practices.
• Temporary fillings that disintegrated, requiring four return visits; by the time crowns were fitted, little or no temporary filling remained.
• Crowns that were not shaped anatomically and left insufficient space for proper dental hygiene.
• Implants placed where there was insufficient bone to support them.

The patient’s dental specialist in Australia assessed the work as “unprofessional and bordering incompetent.” The specialist recommended a bone graft; the patient notes that if a bone graft was required, it should have been performed prior to implant placement — a standard clinical decision-making requirement. The clinic declined any accountability and offered only for the patient to return to Bali for review, which the patient declined after two infections. A request for a partial refund was declined.

Account 2 — Google review, username Daniel Kirstein, approximately 2023:

A German resident of Bali attended Rejuvie multiple times for cosmetic work including cheek fillers and dental procedures. Post-treatment complications included:

• Cheek filler injected in excess on one side, causing an initial lump; after several months, a permanent indent developed at the same location, attributed to nerve or muscle damage. The patient states he will require filler corrections at approximately USD 700 per year for life. The clinic declined responsibility.
• A retainer re-bonding procedure that resulted in one front tooth migrating out of alignment approximately 3–4 months later. The patient required orthodontic correction at an estimated USD 1,500 cost. The clinic declined compensation.

The reviewer also notes that the clinic’s doctors “change constantly.”

The publication’s assessment. Account 1 describes failures that, on the publication’s framework, fall across Category 1 (implants placed without bone assessment or a bone graft — a clinical decision-making failure of the kind explicitly named in the category framework), Category 2 (implants and screws falling out; crowns poorly shaped; confirmed by a second specialist), Category 3 (two infections requiring medical intervention attributed to unhygienic practices), and Category 5 (refusal of accountability, refusal of refund). Account 2 describes Category 2 failures (permanent facial injury from filler work; inadequate bonding causing tooth movement) and Category 5 failures (refusal of compensation). The two accounts are independent and post on the same pattern: serious procedural failures followed by refusal of responsibility.

Patients who have received treatment at Rejuvie Dental Bali and have experienced complications are invited to contact the publication at the address on the about page.

What this review is and is not

This is a desk review. I have not visited Rejuvie Dental Bali. My evidence is: the clinic’s publicly accessible website; the Medical Tourism Co. aggregator profile; the Indonesian regulatory baseline established in the Bali International Dental Center review; and the peer-reviewed literature.

Dr. Dian Andika Putra: MRes qualification

Dr. Dian Andika Putra holds a DDS (Doctor of Dental Surgery) and an MRes. The MRes — Master of Research — is a research-focused post-graduate qualification, distinct from the Master’s in a clinical specialty (such as the MDS Prosthodontics held by Dr. Suria at Sunset Dental). An MRes indicates research methodology training: the holder has completed supervised research at post-graduate level, typically producing a thesis. This is a positive indicator of academic engagement but does not confer a clinical specialist designation in Indonesia’s Sp. system.

In the aggregator profile, Dr. Dian is described as “RCT and smile makeover specialist.” The root canal therapy (RCT) and cosmetic focus aligns with the DDS plus MRes qualification profile: a general dentist with post-graduate research training in a clinically focused area. This is a plausible and positive profile for a clinician offering high-quality general and cosmetic work. For complex surgical procedures (full-arch implants, bone grafting, sinus augmentation), a Sp. BM or Sp. Perio registration would be the relevant specialist credential; neither is declared.

BPOM and FDA materials claims

BPOM (Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan) is Indonesia’s national regulatory authority for food, drugs, and medical devices. BPOM-approved dental materials meet Indonesian national regulatory requirements — a locally meaningful compliance signal. BPOM approval is the Indonesian equivalent of CE marking in Europe or TGA registration in Australia for medical devices used domestically.

FDA-approved applied to dental materials carries the same ambiguity noted in the Class Dent Durres review: the FDA does not certify foreign dental clinics. If the claim means the clinic uses dental implant systems, materials, or devices that have received FDA 510(k) clearance or PMA for use in the United States, this is a meaningful materials-quality claim. A patient should ask, in writing: which specific implant system and dental materials have received FDA clearance, and what are the FDA clearance numbers?

Published warranty

The 1-year prostheses warranty is the only published warranty in this Bali series. A published warranty — even a short one — is more patient-protective than an undisclosed or verbal warranty, because it creates a documented commitment the clinic cannot later disclaim. The specific terms of the warranty (what is covered, what voids the warranty, and how an overseas patient makes a claim) should be requested in writing before treatment.

Category 1: Clinical governance and registration

Category 2: Procedure-specific competence evidence

Category 3: Infection control and sterilisation standards

Category 4: Continuity of care for international patients

Category 5: Transparency of corporate and ownership structure

What would change this assessment

On the patient accounts (primary FAIL basis): The FAIL verdict would be revised if the clinic produces documented evidence that the patient accounts are materially inaccurate; or if the clinic publishes a documented response acknowledging the specific failures described and evidencing remediation or a protocol change. The publication will update on evidence and date the change.

On the desk-review gaps: PDGI registration numbers for all three named clinicians; named implant system (brand and model) with clearance documentation; clarification of the “FDA-approved” claim with specific clearance numbers; warranty terms in full including the overseas claim process; and an independently audited sterilisation certification. These would address the transparency gaps but do not, on their own, close the clinical-failure FAIL.

Questions a patient should ask before booking

1. What are the PDGI registration numbers for Dr. Dian, Dr. Adinda, and Dr. Fryanantha?
2. What specific implant system will be used (brand and model), and what is its FDA clearance number?
3. What are the full terms of the 1-year prostheses warranty, and how does an overseas patient make a claim?
4. Does the clinic hold any independently audited quality management or sterilisation certification?
5. What is your written protocol for post-treatment complications after I return home?

Overall finding

FAIL: documented implant failures with bone loss, two infections, procedure quality confirmed incompetent by an Australian specialist, permanent filler injury, refusal of accountability.

Rejuvie Dental Bali is not recommended. The published 1-year warranty, the BPOM materials compliance, and the named clinical team were noted in the publication’s prior assessment. They do not outweigh two independent public accounts of serious clinical failures and consistent refusal of responsibility. The publication will revise this verdict if the clinic produces documented evidence that the patient accounts are materially inaccurate, or that the clinic has acknowledged and remediated the failures described.

See also

• Bali International Dental Center, Denpasar: clinical review
• Class Dent, Durres: clinical review — for the parallel ‘FDA-certified’ analysis
• The dental tourism trust gap

Sources

1. Rejuvie Dental Bali official website: rejuviedental.com
2. Medical Tourism Co.: Dental Work in Bali: medicaltourismco.com
3. PDGI e-Sertifikasi: sertifikasi.pdgi.or.id
4. Doughty et al., British Dental Journal 2025, PMC11870843: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
5. Patient account by Mark Mcmenamin (Google review, Local Guide), approximately late 2025. URL: google.com/maps — search “Rejuvie Dental Bali Kuta.” Documents multiple implant failures with bone loss, two infections, Australian specialist assessment as bordering incompetent, refusal of accountability. Documented in the patient accounts section of this review.
6. Patient account by Daniel Kirstein (Google review), approximately 2023. URL: google.com/maps — search “Rejuvie Dental Bali Kuta.” Documents permanent cheek indent from filler work attributed to nerve/muscle damage, tooth movement following retainer re-bonding, refusal of compensation. Documented in the patient accounts section of this review.