What the Published Record Says the Phrase "Turkey Teeth" Refers To

Which named sources use the phrase "Turkey teeth" in print?

Two named peer-reviewed records in the corpus behind this page put the phrase Turkey teeth into print, and they do different jobs with it. One is a Perspective article by Irmgard L. Bauer of James Cook University, published in 2025 in Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines and held here under the PMC record PMC11909844, which writes the phrase once, inside a parenthesis. The other is a review by Doughty J, Moore D, Ellis M and colleagues, published in 2025 in the British Dental Journal, volume 238, issue 4, pages 230 to 237 (DOI 10.1038/s41415-025-8330-2; PMC11870843), which takes the phrase itself as its object of study. Neither of them writes it as the name of a dental procedure.

Where the Perspective article puts the phrase is a single sentence about behaviour while travelling: "Dental modifying treatment may also be obtained on a whim while coming across local advertisements for cheap dental work, especially exaggerated veneers (‘Turkey Teeth’)." What that sentence names is an appearance and a way of arriving at it. It does not name a clinic, a country's dental system, a material or an outcome, and the words sitting closest to the phrase are exaggerated veneers (PMC11909844, DOI 10.1186/s40794-024-00242-z).

A limit travels with that quotation wherever it goes, and the article states the limit in its own words: "Importantly, this discussion specifically excludes the topic of dental tourism." The paper is therefore not a source on treatment obtained abroad, on clinics in Turkey, or on what happens to people who travel for dental work. It is a source for one narrow fact: that a peer-reviewed journal wrote the phrase down and set the words exaggerated veneers beside it. Reading it more widely than that means reading past a sentence the author put there to stop exactly that reading (PMC11909844).

What the British Dental Journal review set out to do is stated in its own abstract: "This study aimed to explore the contemporary United Kingdom (UK) media narrative toward dental tourism." Its object is newspaper coverage rather than teeth. The same abstract reports the yield of the search: "The search strategy identified 201 newspaper articles related to dental tourism. A total of 131 articles were included in the analysis." Those 131 articles (PMC11870843, DOI 10.1038/s41415-025-8330-2) are the material behind every finding quoted here from this record, and not one of them is a clinical record.

Which newspapers those articles came from is printed by the review itself: "Ten articles (7.6%) were published in broadsheet newspapers. The remaining articles (92.4%) were published in tabloid newspapers, and of these, 106 (80.9%) were published in either The Sun or a newspaper linked to The Mail (eg Daily Mail, MailOnline etc.)" Our methodology page does not count journalism as evidence for a fact, and counts it instead as evidence that something is being said. The review is quoted here for what it measured about newspapers, and the newspapers behind it are not cited anywhere on this page (PMC11870843).

How the phrase functioned inside the review's own method is recorded in two places. It opens the search string the authors ran against the LexisNexis database, ahead of terms such as Dental vacations, Overseas dental treatment, Dental travel and Dental tourism. It appears again as an exclusion rule: "Articles which referred to someone as having ‘Turkey teeth' but where the topic of the article was not related to dental tourism were excluded." The authors were therefore treating the phrase as a label the press applied to people, one that could attach to someone in an article that was not about dentistry at all (PMC11870843).

What the same search taught the authors about vocabulary is stated plainly: "This investigative search revealed that terminology used by the media differs from that used by the dental community." The review adds where the split falls, recording that newspaper articles tended to use phrasings such as dentistry overseas or dentistry abroad, while dental articles and articles carrying advice from dental professionals commonly used the phrase dental tourism. On that account the phrase this page is about belongs to the first vocabulary rather than the second, and the review is the record of that distinction (PMC11870843).

When the phrase reached a wide audience is dated by the review: "The negative impacts of dental tourism were brought to the attention of the wider public consciousness by a BBC documentary entitled Turkey teeth: are they worth it? which was released in July 2022." That broadcast is not cited here as a source; it is reported as something the review recorded. The review sets it beside its own count, noting that the peaks in article numbers in 2022 and 2023 coincided with dental contract reforms and with a hashtag trend on TikTok. Our methodology page treats material of that kind as evidence that something is being said (PMC11870843).

What does the peer-reviewed literature attach the phrase to?

Of the two peer-reviewed records in the corpus behind this page, one prints the phrase Turkey teeth as a term rather than studying it as a subject, and what that article attaches the phrase to is a look and a route to that look rather than a named operation. Bauer's Perspective in Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines describes dental work obtained on impulse while travelling, and sets the phrase in parentheses immediately after the words exaggerated veneers, in the article held here under the PMC record PMC11909844 (DOI 10.1186/s40794-024-00242-z). The sentence states how the work is come by, and it states how the result looks. It states neither how many teeth are involved, nor what they are made of, nor how much of each one is removed.

Where in the article the phrase sits changes what it can carry. The passage around it is about body modification while abroad, and the article's own framing sentence a few lines earlier reads: "Other problems originate in unwise behaviour, including holiday-inspired body modifications." The phrase arrives as an aside inside that discussion rather than as a definition the article set out to give. An apposition is treated here as an apposition: the record shows a peer-reviewed journal using the phrase, and it does not show a peer-reviewed journal defining it (PMC11909844).

What kind of article it is bears on how much it can settle. The piece is filed as a Perspective, written by a single author, Irmgard L. Bauer of the College of Healthcare Sciences at James Cook University, and it describes its own reach in these terms: "This article represents the first exploration of a range of topics relevant to an until now neglected, yet potentially highly important, area of health care." A first exploration by one author is not a systematic review, and it is not treated as one here. The author line and the institution were read from the stored record itself rather than recalled (PMC11909844).

What the article does not attach to the phrase was counted in its full text rather than assumed. In the copy held here under PMC11909844, which runs to 90,595 characters, the string Turkey occurs once, in the parenthesis quoted here; the word Turkish occurs at no point; and the word veneer occurs once, in that same sentence. The word crown occurs twice, both times on other subjects entirely, one a passage on decorative tooth work and one a first-aid table for a restoration lost while travelling. What is attached to the phrase in that document is a single pair of words.

The second peer-reviewed record in this corpus attaches the phrase to a category built by newspapers rather than to any procedure. Doughty J, Moore D, Ellis M and colleagues, writing in the British Dental Journal (DOI 10.1038/s41415-025-8330-2; PMC11870843), report of that category: "The convenience of collectively placing all overseas dentistry within this category should be acknowledged as both unfair and inappropriate, and yet has become a recognised colloquial term in the zeitgeist for what is otherwise a difficult-to-define and complex social phenomenon." What is attached there is a colloquial label, and the same sentence records that the label fits poorly the thing it names.

How often the Perspective names the wider subject at all is a small count with a large consequence. The words dental tourism occur four times in the stored text of PMC11909844, and two of those four are inside one bibliography entry for a 2009 paper by Leggat and Kedjarune. Of the remaining two, one is the sentence in which the article rules the subject out: "Importantly, this discussion specifically excludes the topic of dental tourism." That exclusion governs every use this section makes of the record, which is read here for what it prints about a phrase and not for anything about treatment obtained abroad. The other describes the search environment around the subject: "Search engines available to the public respond to keywords ‘dental’ and ‘travel’ with a myriad of advertisements for dental tourism and are useless for those looking for dental travel health information." The article is describing the noise around the question, and it is declining to enter the question.

Read together, the two records answer a narrower question than the one a reader usually arrives with. One shows the phrase attached to an appearance inside a travel-health discussion; the other shows it attached to a press category its own authors call difficult to define. A reader who wants to know which operation the phrase names gets that from neither, and our methodology page recasts any sentence that would nudge a reader toward treatment or away from it as a description of what is known. What is known here is what two records printed, and no more. The procedure names that do sit beside the phrase in published descriptions come from the NHS rather than from either of these two records.

What does the BDJ say the phrase did to group identity?

Doughty J, Moore D, Ellis M and colleagues state in one sentence what the phrase did to the people it was applied to: "The phrase ‘Turkey teeth' has created a group identity: people who have all been to similar places, to have similar procedures, have had similar experiences on their journey and ultimately, obtained a similar aesthetic outcome, and in the future will go through the same challenges, disappointments and expenditure on remedial care." What the British Dental Journal review records there is a social effect of a label, reached by reading newspapers, and it is not a clinical finding about anyone's teeth. The review is held here under the PMC record PMC11870843 (DOI 10.1038/s41415-025-8330-2).

Where that sentence sits in the review is inside its theme on social media amplification, and the sentences around it describe the mechanism the authors observed. Newspaper articles, the review reports, commonly built their narrative using a single post lifted from social media, specifically TikTok, and common among those posts was the use of the #TurkeyTeeth hashtag. The identity claim therefore follows an observation about how the press reused social media. It is a claim about a shared story and a shared expectation of future cost, not about a shared diagnosis (PMC11870843).

What the review declines to conclude is written into the same discussion, and it is the sentence that most sharply limits what this phrase can be made to prove: "Almost all of the articles about post-operative complications were Turkey-centric, primarily because the media were focusing on social media accounts using #TurkeyTeeth, as opposed to Turkey specifically being implicated in providing substandard dentistry." The authors are stating that the concentration of complication stories on one country followed a hashtag rather than a measured finding about that country's dentistry, and they are the ones saying so (PMC11870843).

How the label was used by journalists is recorded by the review as a matter of tone: "The language used by journalists conveys a tilt toward scorn, for example, the repeated use of the word ‘dubbed' in reference to the phenomenon of ‘Turkey teeth' and the use of terms that are comical in reference to teeth, for example, calling them ‘gnashers' which is commonly associated with fake teeth (article 53)." The number in brackets is the review's own numbering of the newspaper article it drew that observation from (PMC11870843).

Who the label was attached to is also reported: "There are references to ‘Turkey teeth' being associated with poor or working-class individuals and younger people." The review sets that observation inside a wider account of what it calls culture wars in the UK press, and it carries the point into its own conclusions: "Social media viral health trends were a means of distributing health (dis/mis)information. The perspectives of social media were amplified by the UK press. Tabloids often stigmatised people who had dentistry abroad." The unit being counted throughout is a newspaper article (PMC11870843).

Which findings the phrase sits inside is set out by the review as a list of five: "The themes included: push and pull factors reported to lead to seeking dentistry abroad; patient-reported outcomes and experiences; warnings from dental professionals; amplifying social media hype; and media shaming and stigmatising." Two of those five name what the media did rather than what patients did: amplifying social media hype, and media shaming and stigmatising. The group identity sentence belongs to the first of that pair. Reading the identity finding on its own, without the theme that follows it, would take a description of how a label was used and turn it into a description of the people it was used on (PMC11870843).

What this record cannot support follows from its design. The review analysed 131 newspaper articles published between 2018 and 2023 using framework analysis, and it examined no patient, no clinic and no restoration. A finding that a phrase created a group identity is a finding about how people were written about and how they wrote about themselves. Our methodology page separates a statement drawn from peer-reviewed research from one drawn from an authority's own publication, and it requires the usual limits of the research to be stated alongside a claim of the first kind. This section rests on peer-reviewed research, and the limit is stated here: what that research examined was newspapers (PMC11870843).

Which procedure names appear alongside the phrase in published descriptions?

Two procedure names appear beside the phrase Turkey teeth in the published descriptions quoted on this page, and they are veneers and crowns. Both arrive in the same sentence, because the confusion between them is what a dentist was being quoted about: the British Dental Journal review reproduces that account from one of the newspaper articles it analysed, and it reads "They talk about veneers - mouldings bonded to the front of a tooth - but in reality, they are crowns, meaning much more aggressive tooth reduction" (PMC11870843). Of those two names the NHS pages quoted in this section publish a definition of one, the crown. No NHS definition of a veneer is quoted on this page, and the gap is left as a gap rather than filled from elsewhere.

A crown is defined by the NHS on its Dental treatments page in a single sentence: "A crown is a type of cap that completely covers a real tooth. It's usually made from metal, ceramic or porcelain fused to metal and is fixed in your mouth." That page carries its own review stamp, showing it was last reviewed on 8 July 2026 with the next review due on 8 July 2029, and it was accessed for this page on 20 August 2026. One word in the definition does the decisive work: a crown is described as covering the tooth, rather than as a facing applied to the front of it.

Two more names the NHS defines in the same family are implants and teeth whitening, and neither of them is set beside the phrase Turkey teeth by any source quoted on this page. Of the first it writes: "To fit an implant, a titanium screw is placed into the jaw bone to support a crown, bridge or denture." Of the second, on a separate page last reviewed on 19 August 2025, it writes: "Teeth whitening lightens the colour of your teeth using a gel and sometimes a laser." Both pages were accessed on 20 August 2026. Neither definition mentions a country, and neither mentions the phrase this page is about.

Whether these treatments are paid for by the NHS is answered by the NHS itself, in a sentence that names all three together: "With the exception of teeth whitening, implants and veneers, the treatments on this page are usually available on the NHS." That sentence is quoted here as a statement about what the NHS routinely covers, and it is not offered as an explanation of why anyone travels. The page it comes from was accessed on 20 August 2026, and it carries the same review stamp as the crown definition, last reviewed on 8 July 2026.

The dividing line the NHS draws is clinical necessity, and two of its pages state that line in slightly different words. One reads: "The NHS provides clinically necessary treatment needed to keep your mouth, teeth and gums healthy." The other reads: "You can get dental treatment on the NHS if it’s clinically needed to keep your mouth and teeth healthy. You’ll usually need to get cosmetic treatments privately." Both pages were accessed on 20 August 2026, the first last reviewed on 11 February 2025 and the second last reviewed on 13 March 2025.

Whether the NHS itself ever joins these names to the phrase was searched rather than assumed. Across the 39 NHS and General Dental Council files held in our harvested corpus for this project, which include the full text of the Dental treatments page, the NHS address index and the GDC sitemap, a case-insensitive count of the string turkey returns 0 matches, run on 21 August 2026. The join between the phrase and these three procedure names is therefore made by the two peer-reviewed records quoted here, and our methodology page puts sourcing first: before a sentence is drafted, someone traces where the claim originates and writes that origin down.

What the names do not settle is which of them any given person received. The quotation the review reproduces makes that point directly: it describes people who spoke of veneers, described in the same breath as mouldings bonded to the front of a tooth, and who in that dentist's account had crowns instead. Set beside the NHS definition of a crown as a cap that completely covers a real tooth, the two descriptions are not variants of one procedure. No source quoted in this section reports how often either was fitted, in Turkey or anywhere else, and this page does not estimate it (PMC11870843).

How is the phrase searched in the UK, and in what volume?

Search demand for the exact phrase what are turkey teeth in the United Kingdom is recorded in our own keyword dataset at 880 searches a month, read by Semrush and held in the file en-olcum.json. The same record carries three readings for the phrase rather than one, labelled 2022, 2025 and 2026: 210, then 720, then 880. Our methodology page requires the kind of evidence beneath a claim to set the ceiling on how strongly the claim may be worded. What sits beneath this figure is a keyword tool, so the ceiling is the tool's own unit: an estimate of query counts, which counts neither patients, nor treatments, nor journeys. The same file records a keyword difficulty score of 6 and a cost per click of 1.67 for the phrase.

A second tool disagrees with the first by a wide margin here, and our own keyword record prints both readings instead of choosing between them. SE Ranking returns 30 searches a month for the same string, with a difficulty score of 4 and a cost per click of 1.64, against Semrush at 880 with a difficulty score of 6. That is a factor of roughly twenty-nine between two commercial estimates of one question. A third channel, the Semrush web interface, returns the same 880 and the same difficulty score of 6, which makes the two Semrush readings consistent with each other rather than confirmed from outside. Our methodology page requires the ceiling of our own tools to be stated, because a tool limit that goes unreported turns into a false finding.

How the question gets phrased varies, and our keyword universe file records eighteen question strings for the United Kingdom under the seed turkey teeth, each with its own reading from SE Ranking. Thirteen of the eighteen carry a volume: what is turkey teeth at 320 searches a month with a difficulty score of 11; how much is teeth whitening in turkey and what are turkey teeth made of at 140 each; how do turkey teeth work at 110; why do people go to turkey for teeth at 50; the headline phrase what are turkey teeth and what do turkey teeth look like at 30 each; what are turkey teeth called and how much does it cost for teeth in turkey at 20 each; and what is turkey teeth trend, what are turkey teeth uk, how much are turkey teeth and how much does it cost for teeth implants in turkey at 10 each. The remaining five are recorded at 0: what are turkey teeth love island, what are turkey teeth bbc, where did katie price have her teeth done in turkey, how much are teeth implants turkey and how much to get your teeth done turkey. A string appears above because the file holds it, and printing a query makes no claim about anyone or anything it names. Our methodology page states that we choose the sample before we see any result, and all eighteen strings the file holds under that seed are printed here rather than the part of the list that reads well.

One of those strings shows the same disagreement between tools inside a single row. How much are turkey teeth is recorded at 10 in the SE Ranking question file and at 1,300 in the Semrush file en-olcum.json for the same market. Our own record for the head term reports a three-way split of the same kind: turkey teeth is read by Semrush at 22,200 searches a month, by SE Ranking at 47,500 and by Moz at 340, and the Moz harvest carries its own warning that its volumes are not comparable with the Semrush ones. Three numbers are printed here because three were measured, and not one of them was selected as the true one. Our editorial standards page states that we publish no clinic rankings, no best lists, no price promises and no star badges, and not one of these three readings is offered as any of those.

Three further measured terms are answered by this page rather than by pages of their own, and their readings sit in the same datasets. Turkey teeth is read by Semrush at 22,200 searches a month with a difficulty score of 11; are turkey teeth safe at 210 with a difficulty score of 4; and why do people go to turkey for teeth at 50, that last figure coming from SE Ranking rather than from Semrush. Our methodology page marks something we gathered and counted ourselves as our own measurement with the method set out, and the method here was to keep each reading beside the tool that produced it.

What a search volume can support is limited, and our own dataset labels the intent of this query as informational, which classifies the query rather than the person typing it. A count that moves upward across three readings means one tool recorded the string being typed more often; it does not mean more people travelled, more work was carried out, or more work failed. No keyword tool held here separates a person reading before treatment from a person worrying after it, and no clinical sentence on this page rests on a search figure. Our keyword universe file also carries a flag for this query, marking it as one where an AI answer was seen and listing sge among its result-page features; that flag is a tool's report about one reading rather than our own observation of a results page.

Which pages answer this query in the UK today, and which sites does Google's AI Overview cite?

Our own live capture of the United Kingdom results page for the exact string what are turkey teeth was taken on 20 August 2026 and holds nine organic results, in this order: www.yorkshiredentalsuite.co.uk, queensgatedental.co.uk, www.youtube.com, www.uksmiles.co.uk, www.southkenmd.co.uk, www.mytribeinsurance.co.uk, www.lythamdental.co.uk, hrsdental.co.uk and www.sevilsmile.com. Seven of the nine are dental practice or clinic sites, one is a video and one is an insurance comparison site. The file records the request itself alongside the results, with the language set to English and the market to the United Kingdom, and it records that the engine returned no challenge page. Our methodology page keeps a section for declaring what we could not measure, settling there on the honest sentence that a thing was not measurable under the design used rather than that it does not exist. One capture on one day cannot measure change over time, and no trend is claimed from it here.

Which kinds of publisher are missing from that capture is the part worth stating. No page from nhs.uk, from the General Dental Council, from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or from any peer-reviewed journal appears among those results. Our methodology page puts the regulation or law in its own words first in its order of preference, then whatever the institution holding the authority publishes itself, then peer-reviewed clinical literature; not one of those three classes is represented in the capture. What a reader of that page meets instead is a set of businesses that sell the treatment being described.

What our live capture does not record is an AI Overview, and the reason matters more than the fact. The capture file for this string has no AI Overview field at all, so the file is silent about the question rather than answering it, and a silence in a schema is not a measurement of absence. This page therefore makes no claim about whether Google showed an AI answer for this exact string on 20 August 2026. Our methodology page reports absence of evidence as absence of evidence, and an absence that was never measured is not evidence of anything.

Where a full AI Overview was captured and stored is a neighbouring string, what is turkey teeth, crawled on 5 August 2026 for the United Kingdom. Its overview opens with a definition, saying that the phrase "is a slang term for full-mouth cosmetic dental work done abroad, mostly using crowns instead of veneers, to achieve a bright white smile." It goes on: "It involves filing down healthy natural teeth into sharp pegs and is popular because it costs much less than in the UK." Our evidence audit page lists a figure produced by a language model among the things that do not count as a source, so those two sentences are recorded here as what the answer box said, not as evidence about teeth.

Which sites that overview drew on is recorded in the same stored file: ten source entries resolving to ten distinct domains, written here as the file writes them. They are www.bbc.co.uk, www.yorkshiredentalsuite.co.uk, www.southkenmd.co.uk, www.youtube.com, www.mytribeinsurance.co.uk, dentalaysturkey.com, www.lythamdental.co.uk, londonspecialistdentist.co.uk, hrsdental.co.uk and www.uniquesmileturkey.com. One is a broadcaster, one a video platform and one an insurance comparison site; the remaining seven are dental businesses. Our evidence audit page also rules out a press article citing nobody itself, which is why the broadcaster in that list is reported as a cited domain rather than quoted as a source.

Across the 26 United Kingdom search captures stored in that corpus, 25 of which carry an AI Overview, those overviews cite 81 distinct domains, and the count was run for this page rather than recalled. Not one of the 81 is nhs.uk, the General Dental Council, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, a gov.uk address or a journal host. What the list holds instead is dental practices in the United Kingdom, clinics in Turkey, medical travel and booking sites, social and video platforms, two news sites and one consumer brand. Our methodology page marks something we gathered and counted ourselves as our own measurement with the method set out, and the method here was a domain count across the stored capture files.

How far this query's results overlap with three neighbouring ones was measured on the same captures, comparing the first page of results at address level with the smaller result set as the denominator, and the output is held in our own search-overlap dataset. Against turkey teeth the overlap is 50.0 per cent, four addresses out of eight; against are turkey teeth safe it is 50.0 per cent again, four out of eight; and against why do people go to turkey for teeth it is 44.4 per cent, four out of nine. Above a 40 per cent threshold our own reading rule treats two queries as one page, which is why the three neighbours are answered here rather than separately. Where a percentage of that kind later turns out to be wrong, our corrections page counts a number we published that we can no longer support with the method we used to get it as a correction.

Where does this page stop?

Where this page stops is set by our own publishing rules rather than by how much has been written about Turkey teeth. Our editorial standards page states that Smile Handbook issues no clinical judgments, and that pages carrying clinical judgement wait until a named person's check can be shown, leaving the corrections log and the evidence audit as the checks a reader holds over us. A named medical editor has been appointed, and two approvals stand behind that name. The collective one covers the site as a whole and no single page; it was reported on 1 September 2026, and written on 6 September 2026. This page also holds its own dated signature record. Every clinical sentence here is either a quotation from a named published source, a statement about what a named source does not say, or a reading of ours.

What this page does not do follows from the same standards. It does not rank clinics, recommend a dentist, quote a price for crowns or veneers, or offer any route to book treatment, in Turkey or anywhere else. Our editorial standards page states that we publish no clinic rankings, no best lists, no price promises and no star badges, and that we do not treat patients, do not arrange appointments, and have no commercial relationship with any dental clinic in Turkey or anywhere else. We are not a clinic, an agency or a booking service, and no figure quoted here was measured in a Turkish clinic.

Why a page about a slang phrase can be written at all, when the phrase belongs to newspapers and social media, is answered by our methodology page. It does not count journalism, forum posts or marketing pages as evidence for a fact, but it does count them as evidence that something is being said, which is a different claim and is written differently. Every sentence here about media coverage is of the second kind, and each one is carried by a peer-reviewed review of that coverage rather than by the coverage itself. The newspapers the review analysed are not quoted on this page.

What the published record does not settle is what a reader most often wants settled. Neither peer-reviewed record quoted here defines the phrase as a dental procedure, states how much tooth is removed, reports how long any result lasts, or reports an outcome measured in Turkey. Our methodology page states that when a claim fails at any stage we do not water it down until it slips through: it either goes, or it stays as an open question with the gap spelled out. The gaps found while writing this page were left as gaps rather than filled from general knowledge.

How this page will eventually be checked is described on our evidence audit page, which counts claims rather than pages or sentences and publishes the share of them carrying a first-hand source. Our evidence audit page explains how claims are counted and presents the recorded results. The same page lists what does not count, including a press article citing nobody itself and a figure produced by a language model, and it records that citing ourselves creates no evidence, so self-references drop out of the numerator entirely.

Where a claim on this page turns out to be wrong, our corrections page defines what happens next. It counts as a correction when a number we published turns out to be wrong, when we overstate the strength of a claim by describing something as measured when it was only estimated, or when a source we cited turns out not to say what we said it said. All three of those failures are live risks on a page built out of quotations. That log is published, only grows, and states on its own face that a log this short carries almost no information about our accuracy.

One limit belongs at the end because it applies to everything above it. The two peer-reviewed records this page rests on share no name between their author lines, which were read from the records themselves; beyond that their independence is unmeasured. No citation query was run to see whether one appears in the other's reference list, and no comparison of their institutions was made beyond what each record states about itself. Both are named here with their own author lines, institutions and identifiers so that a reader can run that check without us. A page about what a phrase refers to is a record of published wording, and it is not a record of what happens to teeth.