Article I
Evidence over opinion.
A treatment plan is grounded in a documented diagnosis, imaging of record, and a written rationale shared with the patient before consent. Where evidence does not support the planned procedure, the member says so in writing.
This Article is the foundation of every other. A member who cannot cite the evidence for what they propose to do — or who proposes to do it anyway — has nothing to defend before Standards. Where the evidence is contested, the member discloses that to the patient; where the evidence is absent, the member discloses that too.
- CBCT or equivalent imaging, dated, kept on file for ten years.
- Written rationale shared with the patient before consent.
- Treatment alternatives discussed in writing, including no treatment.
- Citations on request from any examiner, auditor, or patient.
Article II
Disclosure of conflict.
Industry payments, equity, paid speaking, supplier arrangements, and family interests in the same — disclosed annually on the public register. A member who fails to file is suspended after thirty days; a member who files falsely is referred to Standards, and the sanction is removal.
The register is searchable by member, by company, and by year. Members are not prohibited from receiving industry support; they are required to publish it. The patient and the colleague can then read what is so, and decide what to make of it.
- Annual filing; threshold €500.
- Equity in implant or biomaterials companies, any amount.
- Family interests treated as the member's own.
- Public, searchable, dated; ten-year retention.
Article III
One operator, one record.
The surgeon of record is the human who performs the surgery. No ghost operators, no outsourced execution, no last-minute substitutions without written notice and the patient's signed re-consent. The named operator is on the patient's chart, on the consent form, and at the table.
This Article exists because the patient's expectation — that the surgeon they consented to is the surgeon they get — is too often broken without their knowledge. The standard is simple: if the named operator cannot attend, the procedure is rescheduled or re-consented, never quietly substituted.
- Operator named on the consent form before the procedure.
- Re-consent in writing if the operator changes.
- Chart entry signed by the operator on the day of surgery.
- Assistance and supervision recorded by name.
Article IV
Outcomes, audited.
Every member submits an annual case log. A random sample is drawn by lot and audited by two Fellows. The audit examines completeness, consent, imaging, written rationale, follow-up, and complications. The summary becomes part of the public file.
The audit is not a search for fault — most audits pass. It is a discipline that keeps the record current and the practice honest. Members who pass cleanly for ten consecutive years are eligible for the Fellow class; members who fail are remediated; serious or repeated failures are referred to Standards.
- Annual case log filed by 31 January.
- Random draw by lot, in public, at the spring Council.
- Two Fellows audit; one outside the member's country.
- Audit summary published in the member's registry file.
Article V
Complaints, on the record.
Patient complaints are accepted from any source — directly, through counsel, anonymously, through another clinician. They are acknowledged the day they are received, investigated within sixty days, and ruled on within ninety. Outcomes are published in the next issue of Acta Implantologica, by name.
Anonymised rulings are dishonest rulings. The association has lost no defamation suit in its history; truthful publication of a documented ruling is defensible. Where a complaint is found unsubstantiated, that finding is also published — under the member's name — and the member's record is cleared in the same issue.
- Acknowledged the day received.
- Investigated by Standards, never by the named member.
- Hearing open to members on request; press by application.
- Ruling published, by name, within ninety days.
Article VI
The duty to refer.
A member declines what is beyond their competence and names a colleague who can perform it. Greed is not a clinical indication. The colleague named need not be an association member; the test is competence, not affiliation.
Article VI sits last because it is the easiest to violate without being noticed. The audit examines case logs for procedures that the operator's training and experience do not support — a complex zygomatic case undertaken by a recently licensed practitioner, for example — and the Council asks for the rationale.
- Competence tested by training, supervised cases, and outcomes.
- Referrals documented in the chart and explained to the patient.
- The named colleague is not required to be an association member.
- Failure to refer, where competence is absent, is an Article VI breach.