Dental tourism statistics count things that are not equivalent: one counts visitors crossing a border, one counts foreign patients registered at a clinic, one counts dentists' replies to a survey, and one is a market research firm's estimate. There is no shared definition or collection method between countries, so figures from different sources can mislead when placed side by side.
Before trusting a figure, ask who counted, what, how, when and why. This page gives a checklist and real examples.
Why there is no solid “number of dental tourists”
- No common definition
- A study in the WHO Bulletin names the lack of a shared collection method as a main reason statistics are limited. Some countries count foreign patients' hospital visits, some count people and some count nothing.
- Dental is often not counted separately
- Many countries' tourism statistics use a single “health” category, and dental care is inside it or not separated at all. An industry analyst has noted that dental and cosmetic tourism are serious medical treatments and that overlooking them in general data distorts the numbers.
- Border statistics are indirect
- Visitor surveys ask only for the main purpose of the trip. People who come for health and also stay as tourists can be classed differently. In Poland's case, short-stay patients from border regions and people who appear officially unemployed but work abroad reduce data quality.
- Unauthorised and unrecorded services are not counted
- Official records cover only reported and authorised services.
- Private patients often pay themselves
- Most medical tourists pay for their own treatment, so they do not appear in insurance or public records.
What an official definition looks like: an example
Latvia's official health statistics body (SPKC) defines a “medical tourist” as a foreign private person who, while travelling outside their usual country of residence, receives planned (elective) health services not paid for from the state budget. The report's data come from an official statistics form submitted to the state by treatment institutions, and it defines indicators such as age group, average length of treatment and average spending per service. A good sign in an official statistic is that it writes out its definition and method.
Kinds of figure, and how far to trust them
| Type | Example | Strength | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official statistic | National statistics office or health ministry data | Definition and method are published; can be audited | Definitions differ between countries; dental may not be separate |
| Official or institutional survey | International passenger surveys, health department surveys | Large samples | Limited to a main-purpose question; varies by country |
| Professional body survey | Surveys of dentists (for example the BDA) | Reflects clinical experience | Voluntary replies; shows dentists' experience, not the share of patients |
| Academic study | Systematic reviews, cohort studies | Method and limits are explained | Based on a particular population; cannot be generalised |
| Market research report | “The dental tourism market is X billion dollars” | A quick summary | Definition and method are often behind a paywall; large gaps between reports |
| Intermediary or clinic content | Platform blogs, press releases | Practical information | Commercial interest; method may not be transparent |
Why market-size estimates differ so much
Market estimates published for the same period differ many times over. One report puts the global dental tourism market at 4.5 billion USD for 2025, another at 3.18 billion USD and another at about 16.8 billion USD, and a platform speaks of 14.8 billion USD. Growth rates range from 14.8% to 22%.
The reasons are that what is counted is defined differently (patient spending or clinic income, travel included or not), the methods differ, and paid reports hide the method. So give market-size figures as a range, with the source, and never present any one of them as “the real figure”.
Six claims, checked against the list
These are statements we met while preparing this site. We checked each against the checklist below.
| Claim (and where it came from) | The problem or question | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| “The dental tourism sector is worth 14.8 billion USD” (a medical tourism platform) | A commercial platform; no definition or method; 3–5 times apart from other reports | As one estimate within a range, labelled “the platform's own claim” |
| “Mexico accounts for 25% of the dental tourism market” (the same platform) | The denominator is not given (which market, which year) | As an unverifiable claim; do not use |
| “Türkiye performs over 2,000 aesthetic dental procedures a day” (a travel guide) | No source or method. Who measures daily? | Unverifiable; do not use |
| “86% of dentists saw complications after treatment abroad” (BDA survey) | A sample of 1,000 UK dentists; voluntary replies; a percentage of these dentists, not of patients | Present as dentists' experience, not as the share of patients with problems |
| “86% of patients treated abroad needed correction” (a law firm summary) | A misreport of the BDA finding: 86% is a share of dentists, not patients | An example of misreporting; do not use |
| “Savings of up to 70%” (many guides) | Which country, which treatment, compared with what price? “Up to” shows the best case | Give price comparisons with source, date and scope; do not present as an “average” |
About the BDA survey itself: over 90% of dentists said they had examined patients treated abroad (different publications give “over 90%”, 94% or 95%), and 86% of those had met problem cases. This is an important warning sign, but it does not show what percentage of all treated patients had a problem, because the number of patients is unknown.
A checklist for reading statistics
- Who published it? An official body, a professional body, an academic or a commercial company? Is there a conflict of interest?
- What does it count? People, visits, patients, income or dentists' replies? Is dental separate or part of general health?
- Who does it include and exclude? Unauthorised services, unregistered patients, short border crossings?
- How was it collected? Records, a survey or an estimate? Sample size and response rate?
- When? Which year or period? Is there newer data? Has it been revised?
- What is the denominator? A percentage is a percentage of something: dentists, patients, treatments?
- Is it comparable? Are definitions the same across countries and sources? Is currency and price level (inflation, exchange rate) adjusted?
- What does it not say? Does the figure say anything about cause or quality?
- Does it agree with other sources? If not, what explains the difference?
- Can I reach the primary source? The original publication, not a news summary.
Common mistakes
- Reading a dentists' survey as a patient rate (the BDA example above).
- Presenting a general health tourism figure as dental tourism.
- Taking a target for an outturn (for example an income target against realised income).
- Merging different definitions on one chart.
- Presenting the best case as the average (“savings of up to 70%”).
- Taking one country's high figure as better quality. Patient numbers say nothing about safety or the quality of results.
- Mixing currencies: USD, TL and sterling, and inflation. Say which date and rate were used.
- Treating correlation as cause: naming one event as the only reason a country's patient numbers fell.
How this site presents statistics
- Every figure comes with its source, date, definition and method note.
- Four kinds of statistic are shown separately: dental tourism, general health tourism, international patient numbers and health spending.
- Conflicting figures are given as a range and the reason is explained.
- Unofficial figures (market estimates, platform claims) go in a separate section with a label.
- “No data found” rows are shown openly.
- Corrections policy: if a misreported figure is found, a dated correction note is added.
Frequently asked questions
Which figure should I trust?
One with a clear definition and method, no conflict of interest, and if possible a primary source you can check. Look for agreement between several sources rather than a single figure.
Are market research reports useless?
They can give a general idea, but the gaps between them are so large that you should not base a decision on them.
If patient numbers are rising, is it safe?
No. Patient numbers are a sign of demand, not of quality or safety.
Do price comparisons count as statistics?
No. Prices vary with time, scope, exchange rate and facility. Compare written quotes of the same scope (see the questions page).
Sources
- WHO Bulletin: medical travel and data limits
- Latvia SPKC: definition and method of medical tourism statistics
- IMTJ: flaws in official figures and where dental tourism sits in the count
- IMTJ: do the numbers of medical tourism make sense?
- Medical tourism statistics in Poland (academic)
- BDA survey (Dentistry.co.uk)
- BDA survey details (IMTJ)
- Market forecast example: Global Market Insights (commercial)
- Market forecast example: Towards Healthcare (commercial)
- Market forecast example: Value Market Research (commercial)
- Platform claim example: Bookimed (commercial)