Clinic overview
This case study examines the performance of a Google Ads campaign run for a private dental clinic based in London specialising in cosmetic dentistry and dental implants.
The clinic offers a wide range of treatments including general dentistry, orthodontics, cosmetic procedures and advanced surgical treatments. However, dental implants represent one of the most valuable treatments for the practice.
Typical implant treatment values ranged between £3,000 and £14,000 per patient depending on case complexity.
The clinic had already been running Google Ads campaigns for several months prior to optimisation. Despite investing consistently in paid search advertising, the clinic was struggling to generate a reliable volume of high-quality implant enquiries.
The primary goal was to increase the number of qualified implant consultations without increasing the existing advertising budget.
Campaign performance before optimisation
£4,200
1,850
£2.27
7
£168
3–4
Although the campaign was generating traffic, the number of implant enquiries remained relatively low compared to the level of ad spend.
This suggested that the campaign was attracting too many low-intent visitors.
Initial marketing audit
A full campaign audit was conducted to understand where budget inefficiencies were occurring.
The audit focused on three main areas:
- Search intent targeting
- Conversion tracking accuracy
- Landing page conversion performance
This review included analysing keyword data, search term reports, user behaviour on the landing page, and call enquiry patterns.
Key issues identified
1. Large amount of irrelevant traffic
The campaign was targeting a broad set of keywords related to dental implants. However, many search queries triggering the ads were not related to patients looking for private implant treatment.
Examples of search queries triggering ads included:
- dental implant training course
- dental implants abroad
- cheap dental implants uk
- NHS dental implants
- dental implant jobs
These searches generated clicks but were unlikely to convert into private implant patients.
2. Lack of negative keyword filtering
The Google Ads account had very few negative keywords configured. Because of this, the ads were appearing for hundreds of irrelevant search queries.
During the audit we identified 214 search queries that should have been excluded from targeting.
These queries were added to a structured negative keyword list.
Examples included:
- course
- training
- salary
- NHS
- jobs
- cheap
- abroad
- Turkey
After implementing negative keywords, the campaign immediately began attracting more qualified traffic.
3. Campaign structure was too broad
The original campaign grouped multiple treatment searches into a single campaign.
For example:
- dental implants
- dental implants cost
- all-on-4 implants
- implant dentist
All keywords were competing within one campaign, making it difficult to prioritise budget toward high-intent searches.
This structure limited the campaign’s ability to scale high-performing keywords.
Campaign restructure
The account was reorganised into dedicated campaigns based on patient search intent.
New campaign structure
-
Implant high intent searches
Examples: dental implants london, implant dentist london, dental implant clinic london -
Implant cost searches
Examples: dental implants cost london, cost of dental implants -
Procedure specific searches
Examples: all on 4 implants london, full mouth implants -
Competitor searches
Examples: implant clinics london
This structure allowed budget allocation to prioritise patients actively searching for implant treatment.
Geographic targeting optimisation
The clinic originally targeted a very broad area across Greater London. However, analysis of enquiry data showed that most patients travelled between 5 and 12 miles for implant consultations.
The campaign targeting was refined to focus on:
- Central London
- North London
- West London
This helped improve lead quality and reduce irrelevant traffic from distant locations.
Device behaviour analysis
User behaviour data showed that mobile devices accounted for the majority of implant enquiries.
71%
24%
5%
Mobile users were significantly more likely to call the clinic directly rather than submit a form.
This insight led to additional optimisation of mobile landing page design and call-to-action placement.
Landing page improvements
The original implant landing page had several issues affecting its conversion rate.
Problems included:
- unclear consultation call-to-action
- limited explanation of implant treatment
- lack of social proof
- minimal information about financing options
A new landing page structure was introduced including:
- clear explanation of implant treatment stages
- before-and-after images
- patient testimonials
- treatment finance options
- prominent consultation booking options
The updated landing page improved the conversion rate significantly.
Call tracking implementation
Before optimisation, the clinic was only tracking form enquiries. However, implant patients often prefer to call the clinic directly before booking consultations.
Call tracking was implemented to monitor:
- phone enquiries generated by Google Ads
- call duration
- call source keyword
Results after 90 days
Following the campaign restructure and landing page improvements, the performance of the Google Ads account improved significantly.
| Metric | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly ad spend | £4,200 | £4,200 |
| Monthly clicks | 1,850 | 1,540 |
| Implant enquiries | 7 | 23 |
| Cost per enquiry | £168 | £64 |
| Implant consultations | 3–4 | 9–11 |
Despite generating slightly fewer clicks, the campaign produced significantly more qualified implant enquiries.
This demonstrates that traffic quality matters more than traffic volume.
Consultation conversion rate
The clinic reported that approximately 40–45% of implant enquiries booked consultations.
From the 23 enquiries generated per month, around 9 to 11 consultations were booked.
Based on historical acceptance rates, the clinic typically converted 3 to 4 implant patients per month from these consultations.
Estimated revenue impact
The clinic’s average implant case value was approximately £3,500.
With an additional 3–4 implant patients per month, estimated revenue generated through Google Ads increased to:
Key insights
This campaign demonstrates several important lessons for private dental clinics.
Many clinics struggle with Google Ads not because advertising does not work, but because campaigns are often:
- targeting the wrong search intent
- missing negative keyword filtering
- lacking proper conversion tracking
- using poorly optimised landing pages
When these issues are addressed, search-based marketing can become one of the most profitable patient acquisition channels for private dental clinics.
Why implant marketing is valuable
Dental implant treatment is one of the highest-value procedures offered by private dental clinics.
A single implant patient can generate £3,000 to £10,000 or more in treatment value.
For many clinics, just two or three additional implant patients per month can cover the entire marketing investment.
Confidentiality notice
To protect patient privacy and clinic confidentiality, identifying clinic details have been anonymised.
The campaign structure, search behaviour insights, and performance benchmarks presented reflect realistic results for private implant clinics operating within the London market.