Which GEO agency or AI visibility agency do AI answers name for dental practices?

Measurement: 14 October 2026. Provider-page checks recorded: 16 October 2026. Originally published: 9 August 2026. The separately dated August v2 archive remains below.

Which dental GEO and AI visibility agencies did these AI answers name?

Selection criteria, before the results: visible naming in the four recorded agency-selection questions; a provider page relevant to dentistry; an AI-search page with its scope identified; and a published price or exit term that can be traced to the provider. Counts determine the row order; service scope, price and terms do not add points.

The table contains all 38 provider names found in the target answers, including software and names whose type or identity could not be verified. Each engine has eight answers. Rows are sorted only by the sum of the two mention counts; ties share the same count and are displayed alphabetically. A zero means the name was not counted in these answers, not that the provider lacks a service.

For the contract/exit column, only terms we could verify on the provider's own page are shown. “Not verified” means the saved evidence did not establish that field; it does not mean the provider has no such service, price or policy.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column.

Dental GEO is retained as the answer label, but its identity is not securely tied to a domain. Dentist GEO also remains an unresolved name. Provider articles, software and implementation services are labelled separately where the records allow; a dental article alone is not verification of a dental implementation service.

What did AI name for an Invisalign practice?

How were agencies searched before they appeared in an answer?

The unit is a recorded run, and the order comes from the saved search-query sequence. The 37-run subset is broader than the eight ChatGPT answers used in the agency-selection table. The log does not show that a branded query caused the mention, or that inserting a brand name into a page would make an engine search for it.

Which published prices and exit terms can a practice verify?

Serpner’s own wording is: “All plans billed monthly with 30-day cancellation notice.” Serpner pricing is the source for that cell. The other unfilled exit-term cells remain “not verified”; they do not imply a more restrictive contract.

Citevio publishes its pricing: Visibility is $1,400/mo plus $1,900 setup, Authority is $2,900/mo plus $3,500 setup, and Dominance is $5,500/mo plus $7,500 setup. Citevio does not guarantee placement, but it does guarantee the fee: if at least two of the four engines have not named the practice in one of the commercial-intent questions agreed at onboarding within 45 days of confirmed setup, the setup fee is refunded in full.

Read scope before comparing amounts: DentalScapes’ Core price covers a bundle, Gargle’s figure is a membership, Geo Digital quotes in pounds, and ChatRank’s monthly equivalent requires annual payment for software. Those are different purchases. OrthoDome and AltorLab publish starting amounts rather than a fixed quote for every practice. No currency conversion or lowest-price conclusion is made here.

Published terms and the complete price statement can be checked on the existing Citevio pricing section. Confirm the current written scope, setup charge and exit terms with any provider before signing.

What agency-selection risks do practice owners report?

Our Google ads have only been running for a month, but we were just told my husband (owner of practice) won’t have admin access or ownership of the Google ads account because they created it.

Public Reddit thread, r/DigitalMarketing. The account concerns general dental marketing and Google Ads, not a verified AI-search agency engagement.

For a buying checklist, ask in writing who owns each advertising account, who has administrator access, and what transfers when the engagement ends. This is a practical inference from the reported dispute, not a finding about any provider in the frequency table.

How should a dental practice read this comparison before hiring?

No agency can guarantee that an AI engine will name a practice, and Citevio does not offer that guarantee. AI placement cannot be bought; there is no paid slot in an AI recommendation.

For the next check, use the existing free AI visibility checker for dentists. For a contract discussion, keep the agency questions and claim-verification guide alongside the provider’s written proposal.

The existing AI visibility checker for dentists is separate from this agency-name study.

How can I check the October method and the older study?

ChatGPT’s eight answers have six gpt-6 labels and two gpt-6-mini labels. Perplexity’s eight records have the label “turbo”; the record does not identify an underlying model architecture. Two records for a question do not establish identical settings. Account and personalisation conditions were not fully established.

Each provider is counted at most once per visible answer. A source URL, domain or raw tool label alone does not count as a visible provider name. Recorded spelling variants are grouped as name aliases; Wonderist and Wonderist Agency share one row, while the unresolved Dental GEO and Dentist GEO labels stay separate. ChatRank was checked directly in the saved answers because it was absent from the earlier agency-only recount file.

The four Google AI Overview question records were used as an auxiliary source-discovery set and do not enter the 16-answer denominator. A broader analysis of 83 non-brand answers across 21 normalised expressions, and the 37 ChatGPT need-question runs above, have their own denominators; they are not extra answers in the main table.

Provider links refer to dated saved pages, not a new live check by this page’s writer. The Roadside destination observation in the supplementary table note comes from the saved 16 October check. An address redirect says nothing about closure or quality. Provider-page check dates are distinct from the provider’s own publication or modification date.

The sample cannot establish service quality, patient gains, sales, a causal effect of a page change or an engine’s hidden decision process. Citevio selected the questions and publishes the comparison. The raw company descriptions are not republished because their claims about third parties were not independently investigated; raw clinic names and client data are not included.

The October source records are retained as the 14 October measurement log and the dated provider-page evidence. This draft does not claim that an October download is already published. The existing measurement methodology explains the broader measurement approach; the public August files below have their own scope and licence.

What does the August 2026 v2 archive contain?

The archive retains run-one and run-two fields. Its 20 and 21 August 2026 source-file dates are not recorded scan timestamps. The published parse has inconsistent question-heading boundaries in the source transcripts, so a separate raw-transcript recount can differ from the published block count. The archive figures here use the published CSV version.

Download the existing August v2 answer-level CSV and August v2 agency-level CSV, with notes on the data page. These published derived files are licensed under CC BY 4.0. That licence statement is not a claim that unpublished October files are already available.

For separate context, see how often AI answers change, whether engines agree about agency-selection answers and the Citevio and Dental GEO comparison. Those pages do not replace this version’s question set or resolve the October name-to-domain uncertainty.

What else should a practice ask about these counts?

The questions below clarify the counting rule, the publisher’s own result and the separately dated public archive.

Does being named by ChatGPT mean an agency is good?

No. The October table counts visible provider names in 16 recorded answers. It does not review agency work, verify performance claims or show that more mentions predict better service.

What exactly did the October study measure?

The target set contains four agency-selection questions with two records per engine per question on 14 October 2026. It contains eight ChatGPT answers and eight Perplexity answers, with 38 provider names across the two engines.

Citevio ran this study. How did Citevio do in it?

Citevio was named in 0/8 ChatGPT answers and 4/8 Perplexity answers in the October target set. Citevio selected the questions and publishes this comparison, so the naming count should not be treated as independent approval.

Does a source link count as a provider-name mention?

No. The October count requires a visible name in the answer text. Appearing only in a source URL or raw tool label does not satisfy that rule.

Can I check the August numbers myself?

Yes. The separately dated August v2 answer-level and agency-level CSV files are linked above and on the data page under CC BY 4.0. They describe the August study and must not be substituted for the October question set.