Patient results

Before and after, from our own chair

Every photograph on this page is a patient treated at this clinic in Ankara. Nothing here is stock photography and nothing has been retouched.

Before-and-after photography is the easiest thing in dentistry to make dishonest, so it is worth saying plainly how these were taken and what they do and do not tell you.

They are our own patients. Every image was taken at the clinic, not bought from a library and not borrowed from a supplier's catalogue. Each one is published with the patient's written consent.

They are unedited. No filters, no whitening in software, no smoothing of gums or edges. What the camera recorded is what you see.

Where the two shots do not match, we say so. Some pairs were taken the same way twice, with the same cheek retractors and the same lighting; those are the ones you can compare most directly. Others pair a retracted clinical view with a natural smile, because that is what the patient came back with. Each case tells you which it is, because a before shot in harsh clinical framing next to a relaxed, well-lit smile flatters the result on its own.

What they cannot tell you is what you would get. Bone, gums, bite and starting shade differ from mouth to mouth, and none of them can be assessed from a photograph of somebody else. If a case here resembles your situation, send us a photograph of your own teeth and we will tell you what is realistic before you book anything.

Before treatment: worn, unevenly discoloured upper front teeth with inflamed gum margins and crowded, worn lower front teeth — Full-mouth rehabilitation, upper and lower arch

Years of wear had shortened the upper front teeth until their edges no longer followed the curve of the lower lip. The shade had darkened unevenly, old restorations no longer sealed at the margins, and the gum was visibly inflamed where they met the tooth. In the lower arch the front teeth were crowded and worn flat at the tips.
Both arches were rebuilt in ceramic. Length and proportion were returned to the upper front teeth so the incisal line follows the lip again, the shade was taken to a single consistent value across both arches, and the margins were finished so the gum could settle cleanly against them.

Arches treated Upper and lower

Restoration Full-coverage ceramic

Photography Same retraction and lighting

After treatment: upper and lower arches restored with ceramic, even incisal line and a uniform shade — Full-mouth rehabilitation, upper and lower arch

Years of wear had shortened the upper front teeth until their edges no longer followed the curve of the lower lip. The shade had darkened unevenly, old restorations no longer sealed at the margins, and the gum was visibly inflamed where they met the tooth. In the lower arch the front teeth were crowded and worn flat at the tips.
Both arches were rebuilt in ceramic. Length and proportion were returned to the upper front teeth so the incisal line follows the lip again, the shade was taken to a single consistent value across both arches, and the margins were finished so the gum could settle cleanly against them.

Arches treated Upper and lower

Restoration Full-coverage ceramic

Photography Same retraction and lighting

Before treatment: upper front teeth of mismatched shade with rotated lateral incisors, an uneven incisal edge line and reddened, swollen gum margins, and crowded lower front teeth — Shade and alignment corrected, upper and lower front teeth

Before treatment the upper arch did not read as one colour: the two central incisors were noticeably lighter than the teeth beside them, which had darkened towards yellow-brown. The lateral incisors sat rotated and set back behind the centrals, the incisal edges stepped up and down instead of following a line, and the gum margin above the front teeth was red and swollen. The lower front teeth were crowded and overlapping, with a darker shade and an uneven edge line of their own.
After treatment both arches read as a single shade from one side to the other, the upper front teeth follow one incisal line instead of stepping, and the teeth sit along the arch rather than rotated behind one another. The after photograph is a natural smile rather than a retracted view, so the two images are not framed the same way: the gum line you can see in the first photograph is largely covered by the lip in the second.

Arches treated Upper and lower

What changed Shade, alignment, edge line

Photography Retracted before, smile after

After treatment: upper and lower front teeth in one uniform shade with an even incisal line, photographed in a natural smile — Shade and alignment corrected, upper and lower front teeth

Before treatment the upper arch did not read as one colour: the two central incisors were noticeably lighter than the teeth beside them, which had darkened towards yellow-brown. The lateral incisors sat rotated and set back behind the centrals, the incisal edges stepped up and down instead of following a line, and the gum margin above the front teeth was red and swollen. The lower front teeth were crowded and overlapping, with a darker shade and an uneven edge line of their own.
After treatment both arches read as a single shade from one side to the other, the upper front teeth follow one incisal line instead of stepping, and the teeth sit along the arch rather than rotated behind one another. The after photograph is a natural smile rather than a retracted view, so the two images are not framed the same way: the gum line you can see in the first photograph is largely covered by the lip in the second.

Arches treated Upper and lower

What changed Shade, alignment, edge line

Photography Retracted before, smile after

Before treatment: lower front teeth heavily discoloured brown along the gum line with worn, irregular edges, against paler upper front teeth — Discoloured lower front teeth brought back into line with the upper arch

The lower front teeth had discoloured to a deep brown along the gum line, and their edges had worn down into an irregular line. The upper teeth were paler but no longer matched them, so the two arches read as two different colours whenever the mouth opened.
Both arches were brought to a single shade and the edges back to an even line. In the second photograph the gum margins sit cleanly against the restorations. Both images are retracted views, so what changed can be compared directly.

Arches treated Upper and lower

What changed Shade and edge line

Photography Retracted view, both images

After treatment: upper and lower arches in one uniform shade with an even edge line and gum margins settled against the restorations — Discoloured lower front teeth brought back into line with the upper arch

The lower front teeth had discoloured to a deep brown along the gum line, and their edges had worn down into an irregular line. The upper teeth were paler but no longer matched them, so the two arches read as two different colours whenever the mouth opened.
Both arches were brought to a single shade and the edges back to an even line. In the second photograph the gum margins sit cleanly against the restorations. Both images are retracted views, so what changed can be compared directly.

Arches treated Upper and lower

What changed Shade and edge line

Photography Retracted view, both images

Before treatment: heavily stained and worn teeth with exposed root surfaces, gaps between the front teeth and an irregular edge line — Advanced wear, staining and recession, both arches rebuilt

This is the most advanced case on the page. Nearly every visible surface was affected: the teeth were stained dark brown, worn short and irregular, gaps had opened between the front teeth, and the gum had receded far enough to expose root surface on several of them.
Both arches were rebuilt. The photograph after treatment shows an even edge line, one consistent shade across both arches, and gum margins settled against the restorations. Both images are retracted views taken the same way.
The part worth knowing is what was *not* done. A mouth in this state looks like a candidate for clearing and starting again, and it would have been quoted that way in plenty of places. In the event, one tooth was extracted and one tooth needed root canal treatment. Everything else was kept. Natural roots hold bone in a way that nothing replacing them does, and a tooth that can be saved is worth more than the tidiest possible plan.

Arches treated Upper and lower

Extractions One tooth

Root canals One tooth

After treatment: upper and lower arches in one uniform shade with an even edge line and gum margins sitting cleanly against the restorations — Advanced wear, staining and recession, both arches rebuilt

This is the most advanced case on the page. Nearly every visible surface was affected: the teeth were stained dark brown, worn short and irregular, gaps had opened between the front teeth, and the gum had receded far enough to expose root surface on several of them.
Both arches were rebuilt. The photograph after treatment shows an even edge line, one consistent shade across both arches, and gum margins settled against the restorations. Both images are retracted views taken the same way.
The part worth knowing is what was *not* done. A mouth in this state looks like a candidate for clearing and starting again, and it would have been quoted that way in plenty of places. In the event, one tooth was extracted and one tooth needed root canal treatment. Everything else was kept. Natural roots hold bone in a way that nothing replacing them does, and a tooth that can be saved is worth more than the tidiest possible plan.

Arches treated Upper and lower

Extractions One tooth

Root canals One tooth

Before treatment: yellowed upper front teeth with chipped, uneven edges, and crowded lower front teeth with gum levels running at different heights, photographed in a natural smile — Both arches rebuilt, with the gum line levelled at the lower front teeth

The upper front teeth had yellowed and their edges were chipped and uneven, so the smile line stepped up and down rather than following the lower lip. The lower front teeth were crowded and overlapping, and their gum levels sat at visibly different heights from one tooth to the next.
That last point drove the sequence. The gum line at the lower front teeth was levelled before any ceramic was fitted, because ceramic finished against an uneven gum margin locks that unevenness in permanently — and no amount of good laboratory work hides it afterwards. It is the sort of detail nobody consciously notices in a smile, and the reason a result can look subtly untidy even when every tooth has been corrected.
Two materials were used, chosen by position. The front teeth are lithium disilicate, which passes light the way enamel does and is what makes a front tooth read as a tooth rather than a chip of white. The back teeth are zirconia, which is considerably stronger under chewing load, and where optical subtlety matters much less than durability. One material throughout would have meant accepting a compromise at one end of the mouth or the other.
Both photographs are natural smiles taken from the same angle, so this is a like-for-like comparison.

Arches treated Upper and lower

Materials Lithium disilicate front, zirconia back

Also corrected Gum levels, lower front teeth

After treatment: upper and lower teeth restored in lithium disilicate at the front and zirconia at the back, following an even edge line, photographed in the same natural smile — Both arches rebuilt, with the gum line levelled at the lower front teeth

The upper front teeth had yellowed and their edges were chipped and uneven, so the smile line stepped up and down rather than following the lower lip. The lower front teeth were crowded and overlapping, and their gum levels sat at visibly different heights from one tooth to the next.
That last point drove the sequence. The gum line at the lower front teeth was levelled before any ceramic was fitted, because ceramic finished against an uneven gum margin locks that unevenness in permanently — and no amount of good laboratory work hides it afterwards. It is the sort of detail nobody consciously notices in a smile, and the reason a result can look subtly untidy even when every tooth has been corrected.
Two materials were used, chosen by position. The front teeth are lithium disilicate, which passes light the way enamel does and is what makes a front tooth read as a tooth rather than a chip of white. The back teeth are zirconia, which is considerably stronger under chewing load, and where optical subtlety matters much less than durability. One material throughout would have meant accepting a compromise at one end of the mouth or the other.
Both photographs are natural smiles taken from the same angle, so this is a like-for-like comparison.

Arches treated Upper and lower

Materials Lithium disilicate front, zirconia back

Also corrected Gum levels, lower front teeth

Before treatment: upper front teeth of uneven colour, one central incisor an opaque, mismatched shade stained along the gum line — Veneers on a young patient, with as little preparation as the case allowed

This was, honestly, a borderline case for veneers, and it is worth saying so. It reached us as a referral from an orthodontist, and the patient is young — which changes the calculation entirely. Enamel does not grow back. Someone this age will carry whatever is done here for decades and will need it renewed at least once in that time, so every fraction of a millimetre left in place now is an option kept open later.
Before treatment, one of the upper central incisors was an older restoration in an opaque shade that matched nothing around it and had stained along the gum line. The teeth beside it had yellowed unevenly, and the edges no longer followed a single line.
That made the brief a narrow one: correct four front teeth with the least preparation the case would tolerate, and match the result to the patient’s own teeth rather than to an idea of white. The restorations are lithium disilicate, which keeps its strength in thin sections and passes light the way enamel does — it is the material that makes minimal preparation viable at all. We took that as far as it goes.
Which is why the canines and the teeth behind them still carry their natural, warmer colour, and why you can see a step in shade where the work ends. That step is the intended result, not a compromise: making this mouth read as one uniform white would have meant cutting far more tooth than a patient this age should have cut. Both photographs are natural smiles.

Teeth treated Four upper front teeth

Restoration Lithium disilicate, minimal preparation

Shade goal Matched to the untreated teeth

After treatment: four upper front teeth restored in lithium disilicate, the shade matched to the patient’s own untreated canines and back teeth — Veneers on a young patient, with as little preparation as the case allowed

This was, honestly, a borderline case for veneers, and it is worth saying so. It reached us as a referral from an orthodontist, and the patient is young — which changes the calculation entirely. Enamel does not grow back. Someone this age will carry whatever is done here for decades and will need it renewed at least once in that time, so every fraction of a millimetre left in place now is an option kept open later.
Before treatment, one of the upper central incisors was an older restoration in an opaque shade that matched nothing around it and had stained along the gum line. The teeth beside it had yellowed unevenly, and the edges no longer followed a single line.
That made the brief a narrow one: correct four front teeth with the least preparation the case would tolerate, and match the result to the patient’s own teeth rather than to an idea of white. The restorations are lithium disilicate, which keeps its strength in thin sections and passes light the way enamel does — it is the material that makes minimal preparation viable at all. We took that as far as it goes.
Which is why the canines and the teeth behind them still carry their natural, warmer colour, and why you can see a step in shade where the work ends. That step is the intended result, not a compromise: making this mouth read as one uniform white would have meant cutting far more tooth than a patient this age should have cut. Both photographs are natural smiles.

Teeth treated Four upper front teeth

Restoration Lithium disilicate, minimal preparation

Shade goal Matched to the untreated teeth

Before treatment: worn, unevenly shortened upper and lower front teeth meeting almost edge to edge, with empty spaces where the back teeth should be — Years of missing back teeth, and why function was rebuilt before appearance

This patient is older and had been missing back teeth for years — more common than it sounds, and more consequential than it looks. When the back teeth go, the front teeth start doing a job they were never shaped for. They carry the whole load of chewing, they wear down, and as they shorten the distance between the jaws closes with them. The first photograph is where that ends: upper and lower front teeth meeting almost edge to edge, worn flat and shortened unevenly, and empty space behind them on both sides.
The temptation with a mouth like this is to treat what shows. Crowns on the front teeth would have photographed well and solved nothing, because the reason those teeth were worn out is that nothing behind them was sharing the work. New ceramic on the front of a collapsed bite wears out too — faster, and more expensively.
So the sequence ran the other way round. The back teeth were restored first, which is what re-establishes contact between the arches and gives the jaw relationship back to the muscles and joints that have to live with it. Only once the bite was being carried at the back were the front teeth rebuilt, to a length that belongs to the restored jaw relationship rather than the collapsed one.
The result is easier to eat with than it is to photograph, and that is the right way round. Appearance follows a mouth that works; it does not substitute for one. At this patient’s age the difference between a bite that functions and one that merely looks tidy is the difference between eating properly for the next fifteen years and not. Both photographs are retracted views taken the same way, so the change is directly comparable.

Starting point Back teeth missing, bite collapsed

Rebuilt first Back teeth, to carry the load

Priority Function before appearance

After treatment: both arches restored, with the back teeth replaced so the bite is carried at the back again and the front teeth rebuilt to the restored height — Years of missing back teeth, and why function was rebuilt before appearance

This patient is older and had been missing back teeth for years — more common than it sounds, and more consequential than it looks. When the back teeth go, the front teeth start doing a job they were never shaped for. They carry the whole load of chewing, they wear down, and as they shorten the distance between the jaws closes with them. The first photograph is where that ends: upper and lower front teeth meeting almost edge to edge, worn flat and shortened unevenly, and empty space behind them on both sides.
The temptation with a mouth like this is to treat what shows. Crowns on the front teeth would have photographed well and solved nothing, because the reason those teeth were worn out is that nothing behind them was sharing the work. New ceramic on the front of a collapsed bite wears out too — faster, and more expensively.
So the sequence ran the other way round. The back teeth were restored first, which is what re-establishes contact between the arches and gives the jaw relationship back to the muscles and joints that have to live with it. Only once the bite was being carried at the back were the front teeth rebuilt, to a length that belongs to the restored jaw relationship rather than the collapsed one.
The result is easier to eat with than it is to photograph, and that is the right way round. Appearance follows a mouth that works; it does not substitute for one. At this patient’s age the difference between a bite that functions and one that merely looks tidy is the difference between eating properly for the next fifteen years and not. Both photographs are retracted views taken the same way, so the change is directly comparable.

Starting point Back teeth missing, bite collapsed

Rebuilt first Back teeth, to carry the load

Priority Function before appearance

Before treatment, retracted view with the teeth together: upper and lower front teeth yellowed and stained brown along the gum line, a small gap between the upper central incisors and worn, uneven edges — Stained, worn and gapped: three problems, solved as one

Three things were wrong at once, and fixing any one of them on its own would have left the other two looking worse. The teeth had darkened to a deep yellow across both arches, with brown staining collecting along the gum line and in the spaces between them. The upper central incisors had a small gap between them, and the lower front teeth had small gaps of their own. And the edges were worn: the upper front teeth no longer finished on one line, and the lower ones had been ground flat.
Whitening would have lightened the colour and left the gaps and the worn edges exactly where they were. Staining this deep, much of it at the gum line, also rarely lightens evenly. Closing the gaps with bonding alone would have meant adding material to teeth that were already the wrong length and shape. So the work was planned as one restoration of both arches. Shape, length, spacing and colour were decided together, across every tooth that shows when this patient talks and smiles, upper and lower.
The result is a light shade, and that deserves a sentence of its own. How light is something we decide with the patient before anything is bonded, and it is the one decision in a case like this that cannot be cheaply reversed afterwards.
This case was photographed three ways: teeth together with cheek retractors, teeth slightly apart, and a natural smile. Each before and after was taken the same way, so every pair can be compared directly.

Arches treated Upper and lower

What changed Colour, gaps and worn edges together

Photography Same framing before and after, three views

After treatment, the same retracted view: upper and lower teeth restored in one even shade, the gap between the central incisors closed and the edges following a single line — Stained, worn and gapped: three problems, solved as one

Three things were wrong at once, and fixing any one of them on its own would have left the other two looking worse. The teeth had darkened to a deep yellow across both arches, with brown staining collecting along the gum line and in the spaces between them. The upper central incisors had a small gap between them, and the lower front teeth had small gaps of their own. And the edges were worn: the upper front teeth no longer finished on one line, and the lower ones had been ground flat.
Whitening would have lightened the colour and left the gaps and the worn edges exactly where they were. Staining this deep, much of it at the gum line, also rarely lightens evenly. Closing the gaps with bonding alone would have meant adding material to teeth that were already the wrong length and shape. So the work was planned as one restoration of both arches. Shape, length, spacing and colour were decided together, across every tooth that shows when this patient talks and smiles, upper and lower.
The result is a light shade, and that deserves a sentence of its own. How light is something we decide with the patient before anything is bonded, and it is the one decision in a case like this that cannot be cheaply reversed afterwards.
This case was photographed three ways: teeth together with cheek retractors, teeth slightly apart, and a natural smile. Each before and after was taken the same way, so every pair can be compared directly.

Arches treated Upper and lower

What changed Colour, gaps and worn edges together

Photography Same framing before and after, three views

Photographed at the clinic and published with each patient’s written consent. Every mouth is different: what is achievable for you depends on your bone, gums, bite and starting shade, and can only be established after an examination. These images show what these patients achieved — they are not a promise of your result.

The treatments behind these results

Most of the cases above are some combination of these three. Each page sets out what is involved, how many days it takes and what it does not fix.

All treatments

Send us a photograph of your teeth

A dentist here will look at it and tell you what is realistic — what can be treated, roughly how many days it needs and what we would not recommend. No charge, no obligation.

Free treatment plan WhatsApp

Before and after, from our own chair

Full-mouth rehabilitation, upper and lower arch

Shade and alignment corrected, upper and lower front teeth

Discoloured lower front teeth brought back into line with the upper arch

Advanced wear, staining and recession, both arches rebuilt

Both arches rebuilt, with the gum line levelled at the lower front teeth

Veneers on a young patient, with as little preparation as the case allowed

Years of missing back teeth, and why function was rebuilt before appearance

Stained, worn and gapped: three problems, solved as one

The treatments behind these results

Dental Implants in Türkiye

All-on-4 and All-on-6 Dental Implants

Porcelain Veneers in Türkiye

Send us a photograph of your teeth