Dental implants in Clearwater: the register behind this contract's mark

Why we are willing to name them

Naming a real company in public is a decision, not a flourish. Three things have to be true before a business appears on this board, and each one is a reading rather than an opinion. A business that fails any of them is not named, and the trade ships without a target — which has happened.

1. 01

   Nobody owns this practice but the person who runs it

   Four register reads answer this the same way. The corporation's own detail record names no corporate owner, no second officer and no predecessor. The state's officer index returns four rows for the officer of record and every one of them names this same document number. The trading name is held by no other registrant. Nineteen other companies share the office building and none of them is a dental practice or shares that officer.

2. 02

   The corporation is current on the state's own record

   The Florida detail record — read from the register's detail page, never from a results row — reads Status ACTIVE, with a last event of reinstatement filed on 8 November 2025. The document history behind it is unbroken: annual reports filed on 17 December 2024, 8 November 2025 and 30 April 2026, and no name history, no conversion and no predecessor anywhere on the record.

3. 03

   The readings were taken twice wherever a second reading was possible

   The entity record, the officer index, the fictitious-name window and the first-capture date were each read again and each returned the value published above. On the tracked searches, nine of the fifteen had also been read the previous day: eight of those nine agree on whether the practice returned at all, and seven agree on the exact position.

What we are not claiming

Research turns up things that do not survive a second look, and things that are true but not ours to publish. Both are listed here, because a page that prints only the flattering half of its own evidence is a sales page, and this is supposed to be a record.

The rating the practice publishes about itself.

Their own site carries a rating and a count in its own markup, with no platform named anywhere inside that block and no platform we can read returning the same figure. That is a claim a business makes about itself. This board records that it exists and does not repeat the number, because a self-published rating is not a review count and must not be quoted, rounded or alluded to as one.

Everything about any individual practitioner.

The register names one person four times over. No name, no credential and no history reaches a published sentence here, and nothing on this page compares one practice's work with another's. Fla. Admin. Code 64B5-4.002 governs dental advertising, including claims of superiority over other dental services, and the board does not need a sentence anywhere near it.

Everything from the health department, including the licence number.

The licence reached on that register is a practitioner licence issued to a natural person — the route says so in its own title — and the corporation's Florida record carries no licence field at all. A practitioner's licence is a fact about a practitioner, so it falls inside the refusal above and is published in no form: not as one the practice holds, not without a holder, not as a number on its own. The same page prints an issue date, an expiry date, a controlled-substance designation, a discipline flag and a public-complaint flag; all were read and none is published, never their proximity and never their absence, because an absence is not a finding in that direction either.

The first-capture date as a claim about how long the business has traded.

The domain is twelve years older than the corporation and no filing connects them. Under the rule this board counts by, each link in a chain needs a record that connects the entities, and a domain is not a record. The register's date is what gets published, which is the smaller of the two numbers and the only one that is filed.

That the searches were read to the two-run standard.

The fifteen were read once. Nine of them had also been read the day before and eight of those nine agree, so eight is the figure with two same-surface readings behind it and eleven is the single-run reading. Both are stated here, neither is described as confirmed, and a second full run is what the next pass adds.

Anything about who is buying these searches.

The advertising register could not be read. The route served a bot challenge to every request that day, including to the control query documented to carry seven advertisers, so five clean zeros from it would have been a fact about our fetcher rather than a fact about this market.