DrT Hair Ankara — Dr. Tayfun Oğuzoğlu

Declared by Turkey Hair Index on 2026-10-12.

Recorded separately and never used in score calculation.

The one-patient-per-day figure is written by the clinic on its claimed Trustpilot profile. The official site separately describes limited annual scheduling, but THI found no independent confirmation of current daily volume, concurrency or active-team count.

Procedure availability and professional technique history do not establish individual suitability or comparative superiority.

Doctor-led planning is the published model; selected reviews describe materially different consultation depth and timing.

The intended role is documented, but patient reports are mixed on how collaborative or extensive the discussion was.

This is the clinic's stated planning model, not an independent audit of individual plans.

The clinic does not publish a current package-by-package stage table. Patients should obtain a written current guarantee for their own treatment.

DrT currently markets surgery as personally performed by Dr. Oğuzoğlu, but it does not publish a current stage-by-stage extraction policy. Patient and historical package material indicates that extraction responsibility has varied by package or case.

Team implantation is well supported historically, but the exact current operator and qualifications for a specific 2026 case require written confirmation.

Supervision or doctor-led wording does not establish personal performance of every stage.

The one-patient-per-day figure is written by the clinic on its claimed Trustpilot profile. The official site separately describes limited annual scheduling, but THI found no independent confirmation of current daily volume, concurrency or active-team count.

An in-person doctor consultation is published; selected accounts differ on duration and depth.

DrT offers remote assessment through its medical team, but a consistent current live doctor video-consultation pathway was not established.

The consultation form offers medical-team evaluation, graft estimation and pricing, but the reviewed page did not clearly expose a reusable photo-assessment protocol or doctor review timing.

International-patient coordination is clinic-published and also appears in patient accounts.

ABHRS lists Diplomate status and a 2017 certification year. Current ISHRS material lists Fellow Member/FISHRS and ABHRS information. These credentials do not establish every operative role or treatment quality.

Role categories are visible, while current names, qualifications and stage assignments are not sufficiently disclosed.

The reviewed current material prominently identifies Dr. Oğuzoğlu but does not provide a complete active surgical roster with nurse or assistant names, qualifications, tenure and stage responsibilities.

Physician continuity appears central to the current positioning, but supporting-team identities and package-specific handoffs are not sufficiently transparent to establish full team continuity.

DrT publishes donor-capacity and long-term-needs planning and has documented body-hair experience. Selected patient reports include both positive outcomes and donor concerns, so no clinic-wide donor-safety or graft-survival rate can be inferred.

The evidence supports a stated planning philosophy and mixed case-level context, not a representative outcome conclusion.

• Published planning framework: The clinic says donor capacity, age, hair characteristics, expectations and long-term needs inform planning.

  Sources:[2]

• Technique breadth: Current clinic and ISHRS material document FUE, Long Hair FUE and body-hair transplantation experience.

  Sources:[2][8]

• Outcome limitation: Independent patient material is mixed and spans different years, facilities and package models; individual donor concerns are not clinic-wide findings.

  Sources:[11][15][16]

Procedure availability and professional technique history do not establish individual suitability or comparative superiority.

A prospective patient reported a $5,000 package for about 3,000–3,200 grafts, with a $2,000 deposit and flights excluded. This is one booking report, not an official tariff or proof that the scheduled procedure occurred. A separate €5,000 Long Hair FUE report concerns an earlier procedure and remains low-confidence context.

The clinic publishes a next-day check, first wash and dressing change; one 2026 booking report also lists the first wash and postoperative check.

A next-day review is published. This does not establish the named clinician for every review.

Online follow-up is published, while historical patient experiences of longer-term communication are mixed.

Medication and products are described as package components; exact prescriptions remain patient-specific.

A universal current PRP policy or package inclusion was not established.

DrT publishes continued online monitoring but does not state a universal minimum follow-up duration on the reviewed pages.