| Independently reported | |
| Study located | Interviews with 20 dental professionals on how outbound dental tourism affects patients and practices[1] |
|---|---|
| Published in | The New Zealand Dental Journal, by researchers at the University of Otago and in practice[1] |
| Finding on quality | Dentists said much of the overseas treatment received by New Zealanders was of high standard[1] |
| Finding on harm | Dentists also saw many patients who had received substandard treatment abroad[1] |
| Stated motivation | Cost is the main motivator for travelling overseas for dental work[1] |
| Numbers of New Zealanders travelling | Not given in any source located[1] |
| Destination countries | Not given in any source located[1] |
| This entry has no primary-record band. The study itself was not read; its findings reach this entry through the university’s own summary of it, which gives no publication date. No New Zealand government source on medical travel in either direction was located, and no figures on patient numbers, destinations, costs or complication rates appear in any source consulted. No typical cost range is given. | |
Medical tourism in New Zealand is documented chiefly through dentistry, and the one study located is notable for refusing the conclusion that professional bodies elsewhere reach. Interviewing 20 dental professionals, it found that much of the overseas treatment New Zealanders received was of high standard, and that dentists also saw many patients who had been treated substandardly abroad.
The study
The paper is titled Returning home with a bargain or a burden? New Zealand dentists’ perceptions of the impact of dental tourism on patients and practices, published in the New Zealand Dental Journal. The lead author is Brent Lovelock of the University of Otago’s Department of Tourism, with Alistair Burnett of Warkworth Dental Practice, Geeny Moon of Lumino The Dentists, David Roessler of the University of Otago Auckland Dental Facility and Karl Lyons of the University of Otago Faculty of Dentistry. The method was interviews with 20 dental professionals about how outbound dental tourism affects patients and practices.[1]
Its reported findings are that dentists said much of the overseas treatment received by New Zealanders was of high standard, that dentists also saw many patients who had received substandard treatment abroad, that cost is the main motivator for travelling overseas for dental work, and that most dentists are willing to discuss the risks and benefits of overseas treatment with patients.[1]
The first of those findings deserves emphasis because it is rare. Across the sources surveyed for this series, statements from professional bodies about treatment abroad are close to uniformly negative, and the usual pattern is a list of risks with no acknowledgement that most patients are treated competently. A study in which practising dentists volunteered that much overseas work was of high standard, while also reporting many substandard cases, is a more credible account precisely because it holds both.
Its limitations are equally clear. Twenty interviews cannot establish how common either outcome is, dentists see the patients who return with problems and not those who do not, and the study measures perceptions rather than clinical outcomes. The researchers’ own advice, which is commentary rather than finding, is for patients to research the dentist’s qualifications, experience and practice quality, allow enough time for treatment needing several visits, and share and bring back dental records. Karl Lyons separately notes that patients treated overseas lack the consumer protections and complaint channels available in New Zealand, that contacting an overseas dentist after complications can be difficult, that remedial treatment may be expensive, and that a local dentist should be involved in the decision.[1]
Why dentistry
That the New Zealand evidence concerns dentistry rather than surgery is consistent with the wider pattern. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention records dental care as the most common form of medical tourism among United States residents, and lists cosmetic surgery, dental care, cancer treatment, fertility treatment and organ transplantation as the procedures most often sought abroad.[2]
Dentistry is the specialty where the cost gap bites hardest in countries with tax-funded health systems that exclude adult dental care, because the patient pays the full price at home with no public subsidy to forgo by travelling. New Zealand’s public system covers adult dental treatment only in limited circumstances, which is the structural reason a dental study rather than a surgical one is what exists here. The sources located do not state this, and it is given as context rather than as a finding.
The same public health guidance advises consulting a clinician well in advance of travel, agreeing how complications will be handled with clinicians at both ends, checking insurance coverage for care abroad and for follow-up, requesting overseas records in English, and confirming what a quoted price includes, since some facilities charge substantial extra fees for follow-up care. It states that accreditation does not guarantee a good outcome.[2]
Scale
No figure for New Zealanders travelling abroad for treatment was located, and no figure for foreign patients treated in New Zealand. A 2015 briefing by an economist in the United States International Trade Commission’s Office of Industries, published as the author’s own views and not the Commission’s, gives the global estimate of roughly 3 million patients travelling for healthcare each year and does not name New Zealand in any of its regional breakdowns.[3]
New Zealand also provides specialist treatment for patients referred from Pacific Island states under regional arrangements, which is government-funded treatment abroad from those countries’ perspective rather than medical tourism. No figures for it were located and none has been estimated.
Limits of the evidence
The study was not read in the journal; its findings reach this entry through the university’s own summary, which gives no publication date and no sample characteristics beyond the number of interviewees. No New Zealand health ministry publication, statistical series or dental association figure was located. Nothing here quantifies New Zealand medical travel in either direction, because nothing in the sources does. New Zealand deserves a fuller entry than the accessible record supports.
See also
- Dental tourism, the form the New Zealand evidence concerns
- Medical tourism in Australia, where the equivalent debate is about cosmetic surgery
- Medical travel and treatment affordability, the stated motivation
- Government-funded treatment abroad, the Pacific referral arrangements seen from the other side
- Clinical outcomes in medical tourism, which perceptions research cannot measure
References
- University of Otago. Dentists’ perspectives on dental tourism. Independently reported: the page was opened and the study title Returning home with a bargain or a burden? New Zealand dentists’ perceptions of the impact of dental tourism on patients and practices, its publication in the New Zealand Dental Journal, the authorship of Brent Lovelock of the University of Otago Department of Tourism as lead author with Alistair Burnett of Warkworth Dental Practice, Geeny Moon of Lumino The Dentists, David Roessler of the University of Otago Auckland Dental Facility and Karl Lyons of the University of Otago Faculty of Dentistry, the method of interviews with 20 dental professionals, the findings that dentists said much of the overseas treatment received by New Zealanders was of high standard, that dentists also saw many patients who had received substandard treatment abroad, that cost is the main motivator and that most dentists are willing to discuss risks and benefits with patients, the commentary from Lovelock advising patients to research qualifications, experience and practice quality, allow time for multi-visit treatment and share and bring back dental records, the commentary from Lyons on the absence of New Zealand consumer protections and complaint channels, the difficulty of contacting an overseas dentist after complications, the potential expense of remedial treatment and the recommendation to involve a local dentist, and the absence of any figures for numbers travelling, destination countries, costs, complication rates or effects on the health system were read directly. The page gives no publication date for the study, and the journal article itself was not read. Retrieved 23 October 2026.
- Stoney, R. J. and Leidel, L. Medical Tourism. CDC Yellow Book: Health Information for International Travel, 2026 edition, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Page dated 23 April 2025. Independently reported: the chapter was opened and the statement that dental care is the most common form of medical tourism among United States residents, the listing of cosmetic surgery, dental care, cancer treatment, fertility treatment and organ transplantation as the procedures most often sought, the advice to consult a clinician well in advance and to agree in advance how complications will be handled with clinicians at both ends, the advice on checking insurance coverage for care abroad and for follow-up, the advice to request overseas medical records in English, the warning that some facilities charge substantial extra fees for follow-up care, and the statement that accreditation does not guarantee a good outcome were read directly. Retrieved 23 October 2026.
- Chambers, A. Trends in U.S. Health Travel Services Trade. Office of Industries, United States International Trade Commission, Executive Briefing on Trade, August 2015. Independently reported: the briefing was opened and the global estimate that roughly 3 million patients are thought to travel for healthcare each year, together with the absence of any mention of New Zealand in its regional breakdowns, were read directly. The briefing states that the views expressed are those of the author and not those of the Commission. Retrieved 23 October 2026.
Sourcing note: the study’s even-handed finding that much overseas dental work was of high standard is reported alongside its finding of many substandard cases, because reporting only the latter would misrepresent it, and researchers’ advice is separated from study findings throughout. The explanation offered for why the New Zealand evidence concerns dentistry is labelled as context not drawn from the sources. The journal article was not read and that is stated. Nothing has been estimated.