Dental Reputation Management.
Review aggregation, solicitation, and response across the surfaces that move the local pack. ADA Section 5.B average-patient rule enforced on every solicited review. Per-state board solicitation rules mapped per jurisdiction.
Dental reputation is review aggregation, filtered through ADA Section 5.B and per-state board rules.
The reputation surface for a dental practice is not the Yelp tier the dental-marketing agencies default to. The load-bearing platforms are Google Business Profile (because NavBoost reads the engagement signals directly into the local pack), Healthgrades and ZocDoc (because direct-booking integration converts), WebMD and 1-800-Dentist (because dental-vertical citation density compounds), and ADA Find-A-Dentist (because the institutional tier carries EEAT weight). The review-solicitation layer runs through ADA Section 5.B; the response layer runs through Section 5.F.2 plus HIPAA-adjacent constraints.
Review aggregation across the surfaces that move the local pack.
Google Business Profile feeds the local pack ranking signal directly through NavBoost (the engagement-signal ranking adjustment). Healthgrades and ZocDoc carry direct-booking conversion plus citation weight. WebMD's provider directory and 1-800-Dentist add consumer-direct citation density. Yelp accumulates a long tail. ADA Find-A-Dentist accepts patient reviews on member listings and feeds institutional EEAT. We aggregate the review surface across the platforms the practice's patient base actually uses rather than running the dental-marketing-agency default Yelp-first playbook.
Section 5.B average-patient rule wired into the solicitation workflow.
ADA Section 5.B governs testimonials and prohibits materially deceptive outcome representations. The interpretive guidance enforces an average-patient rule: a solicited review quoting a statistically anomalous outcome creates an unjustified expectation under Section 5.F.2. We rebuild the review-solicitation workflow to ask the average patient rather than selectively asking the statistically best-outcome case, avoid any reward tied to the content of the review (Section 4.E.1 split-fee adjacency), and never script outcome claims for the patient to reproduce.
Per-state board solicitation rules mapped per jurisdiction.
Texas TSBDE, the Dental Board of California, the Florida Board of Dentistry, and the New York State Board of Dentistry each enforce specific patient-review solicitation rules on top of the ADA baseline. California's interpretive guidance on Section 1680 governs the solicitation surface in California. TSBDE rules layer typeface and disclosure requirements on solicited content. Florida adds rules on credential disclosure in testimonials. Each board updates its enforcement priorities periodically; the variance ledger gets reviewed annually.
Response discipline that clears Section 5.F.2 and HIPAA.
Responses to patient reviews carry HIPAA implications: confirming the person is a patient discloses protected health information. The compliant pattern uses generic acknowledgment language that does not confirm the patient relationship, never restates clinical details the review surfaced, and never names the procedure performed. Section 5.F.2 applies to the response itself: implied superiority language ("the practice patients prefer") trips the false-or-misleading definition. We build response templates that clear both layers without losing the engagement signal.
From review-surface audit to per-state solicitation rollout in six weeks. Then the cadence compounds.
Review-surface diagnostic
Current review surface audited across the load-bearing platforms (Google Business Profile, Healthgrades, ZocDoc, WebMD, 1-800-Dentist, Yelp, ADA Find-A-Dentist). Volume, velocity, and star-average baselined per platform. Existing testimonials audited against ADA Section 5.B for average-patient compliance and against Section 5.F.2 for unjustified-expectation language. Per-state board rules read for every jurisdiction the practice serves. Output names the review-surface gaps, the Section 5.B exposure on existing content, and the per-platform priority order.
Solicitation workflow rebuild
Patient-review solicitation workflow rebuilt against Section 5.B: asking the average patient rather than selectively asking the statistically best-outcome case. Reward and inducement structure stripped (Section 4.E.1 adjacency). Per-state board solicitation rules layered: California's Section 1680 interpretive guidance, TSBDE typeface and disclosure requirements, Florida's credential-disclosure rules, NY State Board's solicited-content rules. Response templates drafted that clear Section 5.F.2 plus HIPAA constraints.
Per-platform rollout
GBP review attributes corrected and engagement signals tightened (response times, response templates, attribute completeness). Healthgrades and ZocDoc profiles cleaned and aligned to the new solicitation workflow. WebMD and 1-800-Dentist profile presence verified. ADA Find-A-Dentist listing confirmed. Existing reviews surfacing Section 5.B violations flagged for response or dispute filing where the platform supports it. Star-rating recovery work where the historical surface needs cleanup before the new solicitation cadence carries.
Monthly cadence
Monthly cadence on the review surface: solicitation rollout per the new workflow, response templates applied within the engagement-signal window NavBoost reads, per-platform monitoring for policy-violating reviews. Quarterly review against per-state board rule updates (boards update solicitation guidance more often than the ADA does). Annual review of the platform mix as the practice's patient base or insurance contracts shift.
What practices ask about reputation management before they engage.
What does the diagnostic actually cover?
Dentist schema deployment on your site, and the Section 5 compliance posture of the existing content. Output is a per-page ledger of load-bearing pages, advertising-rule exposure (Section 5.B testimonials, Section 5.F.6 SEO claims, Section 5.I.1 NCRDSCB disclaimer coverage), and commercial-query gaps in front of revenue.Diagnostic only, or does it convert into something ongoing?
Why do you cite ADA subsections everywhere?
We're using a bundled dental-marketing platform. Why switch?
What is ADA Section 5.F.6 and why does it matter for SEO?
Stop running review-solicitation workflows that put the practice in front of a state-board complaint. Book a diagnostic.
We read your Google Business Profile, your Healthgrades and ZocDoc presence, your WebMD listing, your ADA Find-A-Dentist citation, your existing testimonials against ADA Section 5.B, and the per-state board solicitation rules for every jurisdiction you serve. The diagnostic comes back inside two weeks with the per-platform priority order, the Section 5.B exposure on existing content, and the rebuild plan. The retainer rolls into dentist seo services from there.