WILSON, Circuit Judge:
This case presents an issue of first impression: whether the disclosure provision [1207]*1207of Florida Statutes section 466.0282, which requires Florida-licensed dentists to include disclaimers when advertising specialty areas not recognized by the state and when advertising credentials from non-state approved credentialing organizations, places an unconstitutional ban on commercial speech. The district court found that it does, and granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Richard A. Borgner, D.D.S., and the American Academy of Implant Dentistry (AAID) on their challenge to the statute’s constitutionality. After reviewing section 466.0282 under the test articulated in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980), we find this statute to be constitutional under the First Amendment and reverse the summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
Borgner is a Florida-licensed dentist who practices general dentistry with an emphasis in implant dentistry in St. Pe-tersburg, Florida.1 In light of his specialty, Borgner advertises himself as a member of the AAID, a Fellow of the AAID, and a Diplómate of the AAID’s certifying board, the American Board of Oral Im-plantology/Implant Dentistry (ABOI/ID). The AAID is a national dental organization whose members may earn credentials— specifically, Associate Fellow and Fellow— in the field of implant dentistry. The organization’s primary purpose, goal and objective is the enhancement of its members’ knowledge, skill, and expertise in the field of implant dentistry. Implant dentistry and the organizations affiliated with this specialty, however, are not recognized by the American Dental Association (ADA) or the Florida Board of Dentistry (the Board).2
Prior to 1998, section 466.0282 prohibited Florida-licensed dentists from advertising a specialty practice, which included implant dentistry. This prohibition led Borgner to challenge the constitutionality of this statute, as it applied to implant dentistry. The district court found the statute unconstitutional to the extent that it banned all advertising of affiliation with or certification by non-ADA recognized dental organizations. Borgner v. Cook, 33 F.Supp.2d 1327, 1333 (N.D.Fla.1998) (Borgner I). At the urging of the Board, the Florida legislature amended section 466.0282, adding in pertinent part a provision that allows Florida-licensed dentists to advertise a specialty practice or credential accredited by a bona fide credentialing organization other than the ADA or the Board, but requires that the advertisement disclose that the indicated specialty or credentialing organization is not state-approved. Borgner, again, brought an action challenging the statute and again prevailed. Specifically, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Borgner and the AAID, and declared section 466.0282 unconstitutional to the extent it prohibits Borgner from advertising membership in the AAID and his status in the AAID and ABOI/ID and to the extent that it prohibits him from representing to the public that his practice is limited to implant dentistry without also incorporating a disclosure statement.
[1208]*1208DISCUSSION
We review summary judgments de novo, applying the same standards as the district court and reviewing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Parks v. City of Warner Robins, 43 F.3d 609, 612-13 (11th Cir.1995); Warren v. Crawford, 927 F.2d 559, 561-62 (11th Cir.1991). Whether state restrictions on commercial speech are constitutional is an issue subject to de novo review. Mason v. Fla. Bar, 208 F.3d 952, 955 (11th Cir.2000).
Before analyzing section 466.0282 under the Central Hudson test, we must first determine whether the statute, taken as a whole, is clear as far as what is required and what is prohibited. EEOC v. Total Sys. Serv., Inc., 240 F.3d 899, 904 (11th Cir.2001)(Edmondson, J., concurring); St. Mary’s Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe, 769 So.2d 961, 967 (Fla.2000) (per curiam) (“[A] statute must be construed in its entirety. ....”); Young v. Progressive Southeastern Ins. Co., 753 So.2d 80, 84 (Fla.2000) (“[A]ll parts of a statute must be. read together in order to achieve a consistent whole,” and “[wjhere possible, courts must give effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another”). After reading section 466.0282 in its entirety, and taking into account all of its four subsections, we find the statute’s meaning to be plain and unambiguous on its face.
Subsection (1) of the statute lists the necessary prerequisites for a dentist to hold himself out as a specialist or as a member of an organization that recognizes the specialty: the dentist must have completed a specialty education program approved by the American Dental Association (ADA), and this specialty must be recognized by the ADA.3 Subsection (2) explains how dentists can still represent to the public that their practice is limited to a specific area of dentistry if their specialty is not authorized under subsection (1): the dentist must have attained membership in or attained credentials from an accrediting organization that is approved by either the Board or the ADA as a bona fide organization for such an area of dental practice (in order to receive Board or ADA approval, the organization must require dentists to meet several conditions).4 If a dentist’s [1209]*1209specialty does not fit into subsection (1), and if a dentist is not a member or lacks credentials in an organization under subsection (2), then subsection (3) applies. Subsection (3) allows dentists to advertise their practice emphasis, despite the lack of ADA recognition, if they include a disclaimer explaining that this specialty is not recognized by the ADA or the Board. Moreover, if the dentist wishes to advertise membership in a specialty organization not approved by the ADA or the Board, then the dentist may also advertise membership in this organization (or the credentials he/she has received in this organization) if the dentist includes a disclaimer explaining this organization is not recognized as a bona fide specialty accrediting organization by the ADA or the Board.5
Finally, subsection (4) explains the purpose behind the statute: the Florida Legislature does not want the public to be misled regarding the specialization and particular credentials of dentists. The Legislature wants the public to be informed that some dental specialties and some organizations recognizing these specialties are not sanctioned by the ADA or the Board. The Legislature finds including disclosure statements in these particular advertisements is the least restrictive means available to ensure consumers will not be misled.6
[1210]*1210Therefore, after examining the statute in its entirety, we find section 466.0282 does not completely ban advertising of membership or credentials in the AAID and ABOI, as the district court order suggests. Subsection (3), when read in conjunction with subsections (1) and (2), clearly permits advertisement of an implant dentistry specialty and/or AAID and ABOI membership and credentials so long as these statements are accompanied by the appropriate disclaimers. Keeping this statutory construction in mind, we must now decide whether the disclaimer requirement in subsection (3) imposes an unconstitutional burden on Borgner’s First Amendment rights.
In Central Hudson, the Supreme Court established that while commercial speech enjoys some First Amendment protection, the Constitution “accords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression.” 447 U.S. at 563, 100 S.Ct. 2343. Since the First Amendment is concerned only with “the informational function of advertising,” state regulations of commercial messages that do not accurately inform the public about lawful activity are valid. Id. The standard used in evaluating the constitutionality of government restrictions on commercial speech comes from Central Hudson, which set out a four-step process for assessing the constitutionality of a restriction on commercial speech:
At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. [1] For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. [2] Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether [3] the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and [4] whether it is not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.
Id. at 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343. Our review of the summary judgment will focus on whether the court properly applied the Central Hudson test.
With respect to the first prong of the test, the Supreme Court has, even prior to Central Hudson, drawn a distinction between “potentially” and “inherently” misleading advertising. In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 203, 102 S.Ct. 929, 71 L.Ed.2d 64 (1982); Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976). Inherently misleading or false advertising is not considered commercial speech, and may be regulated by the state at will. In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. at 203, 102 S.Ct. 929. However, advertising that is only potentially misleading cannot be restricted unless the other three prongs of the Central Hudson test are met. See Mason, 208 F.3d at 955. In the instant case, the Board concedes that the relevant expression, Borgner’s proposed advertisement, is only potentially misleading advertising, and is thus commercial speech subject to the latter three prongs of the Central Hudson test.
The second prong of the Central Hudson test requires the government to articulate a “substantial” interest in regulating Borgner’s advertisement. Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343. The Board argues that the state has an interest in regulating the dental profession, and in establishing uniform standards for certification, and to that end, the state also has an interest in ensuring that dentists’ advertisements are not misleading to consumers with respect to those standards. Courts have previously noted that the state has a general interest in regulating [1211]*1211the professions, and that “they have broad power to establish standards for licensing practitioners.” Fla. Bar v. Went for It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 625, 115 S.Ct. 2371, 182 L.Ed.2d 541 (1995). This interest carries with it a responsibility to ensure that professional advertisements do not mislead consumers about which practitioners enjoy state approval and recognition. Therefore, Florida’s desire to regulate dentists’ advertisements due to its interest in “protecting its citizens from unqualified and incompetent health care professionals” is certainly valid, and thereby satisfies the second prong of the Central Hudson test. Strang v. Satz, 884 F.Supp. 504, 508 (S.D.Fla.1995).
The third part of the Central Hudson test has been described as its “penultimate prong.” Mason, 208 F.3d at 956. This portion of the test requires the government to “demonstrate that the challenged regulation advances the Government’s interest in a direct and material way.” Fla. Bar, 515 U.S. at 625, 115 S.Ct. 2371. That burden “is not satisfied by mere speculation or conjecture; rather, a governmental body seeking to sustain a restriction on commercial speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree.” Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476, 487, 115 S.Ct. 1585, 131 L.Ed.2d 532 (1995). The district court held that the Board could not meet this burden in the instant case, because it could not show any “identifiable harm” that would come from Borgner’s proposed advertisement.
Courts have generally required the state to present tangible evidence that the commercial speech in question is misleading and harmful to consumers before they will find that restrictions on such speech satisfy Central Hudson’s third prong. See Ibanez v. Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 512 U.S. 136, 147, 114 S.Ct. 2084, 129 L.Ed.2d 118 (1994) (striking down a state regulation for failure to back up the concern that the speech would mislead rather than inform); Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm’n of Ill., 496 U.S. 91, 108-09, 110 S.Ct. 2281, 110 L.Ed.2d 83 (1990) (rejecting the claim that certain speech was misleading for lack of empirical evidence). The Board argues it has presented tangible evidence in the form of two telephone surveys to demonstrate that the restriction on Borgner’s advertising directly addresses an actual harm—specifically, that consumers would think Borgner’s credentials were recognized by the state, a misleading assumption that the regulation in question is designed to rectify.
Survey data is certainly one way to prove the existence of an identifiable harm. Fla. Bar, 515 U.S. at 626-28, 115 S.Ct. 2371; Bingham v. Hamilton, 100 F.Supp.2d 1233, 1240 (E.D.Cal.2000). If the survey results fairly show that the public is likely to assume that those advertising a dental “specialty” are in fact certified by the state in that specialty, the Board has a credible case that its regulation targets an actual harm, the harm of potentially misleading advertisements.7
[1212]*1212Of the two surveys conducted by the Board, we find the 2000 Study of Florida Residents Regarding Attitudes about the State of Florida's Role in Certifying Dental Specialists to be the most persuasive. The survey results, compiled from 500 completed interviews, found that nearly two-thirds (63.8%) of the survey respondents believe that dentists who advertise as being “certified by a board as a specialist in a particular area” (i.e., advertise as being certified by the AAID in implant dentistry) have been directly or indirectly certified by the State of Florida.8
Nearly three-fifths (57.6%) of survey respondents believe that a dentist who advertises as being a “specialist in a particular area” (i.e., advertise as being a specialist in implant dentistry) or (57.0%) “having his/her practice limited to a certain area” (i.e., advertise as having his/her practice limited to implant dentistry) has been either directly or indirectly certified by the State of Florida.9 Moreover, 68.2% of the survey respondents who had visited a specialist are more likely to believe that dentists who advertise as being board certified have the approval of a Florida state agency or a national organization.
These survey results suggest that a majority of consumers are misled into thinking that a dentist who advertises as being certified by the AAID or who advertises as being a specialist of implant dentistry are somehow sanctioned by the State of Florida.
The 1998 Study of Florida Residents Regarding Dentists and Dental Specialists is less significant than the 2000 survey. However, it does reveal how important ADA certification of a dentist and his/her practice area is to the public. Composed of 1000 completed interviews, the survey was designed to determine whether lay persons would be drawn to dentists who advertise themselves as certified or as specialists by the ADA or by another organization that has not been recognized as an acceptable credentialing organization by the ADA.
According to the affidavit of Kenneth D. Wald, who has a doctorate in political sci[1213]*1213ence and is an expert in survey research, the survey clearly demonstrates that respondents rely heavily on the approval of the ADA in evaluating both general and specialized dentists. Eighty-one. percent of all survey respondents indicated that they were more likely to visit a dentist if they knew the dentist was certified by the ADA. And, over 80% indicated they would have more confidence in a dentist’s ability if they knew the dentist was certified by the ADA, and 79% indicated they would be more willing to trust a dentist that they knew was ADA certified.
Also, in selecting dentists to perform implantation, certification by the ADA was the major reason for selection following either personal or professional recommendation. Knowing that an implant specialist was certified as a specialist by an ADA approved board was either “Very” or “Somewhat” important to more than 79.2% of respondents. In fact, 81.3% were more likely to visit a dentist certified as a specialist by the ADA.
These two surveys, taken together, support two contentions: (1) that a substantial portion of the public is misled by AAID and implant dentistry advertisements that do not explain that AAID approval does not mean ADA or Board approval; and (2) that ADA certification is an important factor in choosing a dentist/specialist in a particular practice area for a large portion of the public. From these survey results, it is clear that many consumers find it difficult to make a distinction between AAID and ADA certification, and many consumers find ADA certification of a general or specialized dentist to be extremely important. They are thus misled by advertisements like Borgner’s, which suggest to them that implant dentistry is an ADA approved specialty or that the AAID is a bona fide accrediting organization. Furthermore, this confusion concerns an issue that is relevant and compelling to a large proportion of consumers. Therefore, the Florida government is justified in regulating commercial speech in this area in such a way that information (i.e., disclaimers in advertisements) is quickly available to consumers so that they might be able to make an informed decision in selecting a dental professional.
Thus, through these surveys, the state has demonstrated the actual harm that could come from Borgner’s proposed advertisements that do not include disclaimers. Without a disclaimer, consumers are led into thinking implant dentistry is a state-recognized specialty and that AAID and ABOI enjoy state approval, when in reality, they do not. The state has also shown that its disclaimer requirements will alleviate this harm because providing disclaimers will help consumers make better, more informed decisions about whom they select as their general or specialized den--tist.
The fourth prong of Central Hudson requires an examination of “the relationship between the [state’s] interests and the means chosen to serve them.” Fla. Bar, 515 U.S. at 632, 115 S.Ct. 2371. We do not require that the regulation at issue be the least restrictive means available to accomplish the state’s objective. Rather, we merely require “a fit between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends—a fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable.” Bd. of Trs. of the State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480, 109 S.Ct. 3028, 106 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989).
We find the disclaimer requirements in the current section 466.0282, compared to the previous outright prohibitions on advertising discussed in Borgner [1214]*1214I,10 to be no more extensive than necessary to serve the state’s interest in “protecting its citizens from unqualified and incompetent health care professionals,” and establishing standards and uniform criteria for the certification of its licensed dentists. Strang, 884 F.Supp. at 508.
Disclaimers are significantly different than outright bans on commercial speech; they are not as broad and less likely to be disproportionate to the ends the government seeks. Courts have been more tolerant of regulations mandating disclosure requirements than they have been of regulations that impose a total ban on commercial speech. See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985); Peel, 496 U.S. at 110-11; Abramson v. Gonzalez, 949 F.2d 1567, 1577 (11th Cir.1992); Bingham, 100 F.Supp.2d at 1241. According to the Court in Zauderer, since “disclosure requirements trench much more narrowly on an advertiser’s interests than do flat prohibitions on speech, warning[s] or disclaimer[s] might be appropriately required ... in order to dissipate the possibility of consumer confusion or deception.” 471 U.S. at 651, 105 S.Ct. 2265. In order to show that a disclaimer is disproportionate to the end the government seeks, a plaintiff needs to show that it is “unduly burdensome.” Id. The Zauderer Court found the disclaimer provision in the Ohio disciplinary rule requiring attorneys to include a disclosure explaining the distinction between legal fees and legal costs to not be unduly burdensome: “we hold that an advertiser’s rights are adequately protected as long as disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the state’s interest in preventing deception of consumers.” Id.
The same rationale underpins our decision in Abramson. In Abramson, we held that the Florida legislature could not prohibit an unlicensed person from holding himself out or advertising as a psychologist when Florida law does not require that such person be licensed to practice psychology. 949 F.2d at 1578. However, we also suggested that a disclaimer would be a constitutional alternative, one which is less restrictive, yet sufficient to cure the potential deception and ultimately serving the state’s interest. Id. at 1577 (“To prefer more disclosure over an outright ban on particular forms of advertising not only protects the advertiser’s right to communicate, but also protects the general public’s interest in receiving information”).
In Peel, the Supreme Court held that Illinois could not completely ban lawyers from holding themselves out as certified or as a specialist (i.e., advertising certification by the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA)) because these statements were not actually or inherently misleading. 496 U.S. at 110, 110 S.Ct. 2281. However, because the Court found disclosure, such as full disclosure regarding specialty certifications like the NBTA, to be of interest to the public and would also “encourage the development and utilization of meritorious certification programs for attorneys,” the Court suggested the state require a disclaimer with any attorney advertisement that mentions certification. Id. at 110, 111, 110 S.Ct. 2281 (“To the extent [1215]*1215that potentially misleading statements1 of private certification or specialization could confuse consumers, a State might consider screening certifying organizations or requiring a disclaimer about the certifying organization or the standards of a specialty”).
In the same vein, the district court in Bingham found that the California State Board of Dental Examiners’s enforcement policy, which prohibits licensed dentists from advertising certain credentials, such as the AAID, to be unconstitutional because the Dental Board “failed to show that a total prohibition is necessary.” 100 F.Supp.2d at 1240. However, the court indicated that the Dental Board’s concern “could be addressed by requiring disclosure in the advertisement that the AAID is not recognized by the Dental Board or the ADA” or “by requiring the advertisement to summarize the requirements for certification.” Id. at 1241.
Lastly, Borgner relies entirely on Iba-nez to support his contention that the disclaimers in section 466.0282 are “unduly burdensome.” In Ibanez, the plaintiff, a Certified Public Accountant, wanted to include her credentials as a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) (a credential she received by a private organization not affiliated with or sanctioned by the Florida Board of Accountancy) in her advertisements to the public. 512 U.S. at 188, 114 S.Ct. 2084. Yet, a rule promulgated under Florida’s Public Accountancy Act prohibited the use of any “specialist” designation unless accompanied by a disclaimer. Id. at 138 n. 1, 146, 114 S.Ct. 2084. The Supreme Court found the state’s disclaimer requirement to be unconstitutional because the Board failed to demonstrate the harm in advertising CFP credentials without a disclaimer and also found the detail required in the disclaimer to be “unduly burdensome.” Id. at 146, 114 S.Ct. 2084. According to the Court, the disclaimer effectively ruled out “notation of the ‘specialist’ designation on a business card or letterhead, or in a yellow pages listing.” Id. at 146-47, 114 S.Ct. 2084.
However, the Ibanez case is distinguishable from the instant case. The disclosure in Ibanez required the plaintiff to state in the advertisement “that the recognizing agency [of the CFP credentials] is not affiliated with or sanctioned by the state or federal government, and it must set out the recognizing agency’s requirements for recognition, including, but not limited to, education, experience, and testing.” Id. at 146, 114 S.Ct. 2084. Borgner argues the disclaimer, is lengthy and complex and renders his affiliation with AAID and ABOI ineffective. Yet, the disclaimer in this case only requires the plaintiff to mention that implant dentistry is not a recognized specialty area by the ADA or the Board and/or that the dentist’s membership in an organization that recognizes this specialty is not recognized as a specialty accrediting organization by the ADA. Compared to the disclosure requirements in Ibanez, the disclaimer in section 466.0282 does not require dentists to set out the AAID’s requirements for recognition, such as the dentist’s education, experience and testing. Therefore, based on the record in this case, specifically the impact of the disclaimer requirement in section 466.0282, and Supreme Court and our circuit precedent recommending disclaimers as an alternative to outright prohibitions on commercial speech, we find the disclaimer requirements in section 466.0282 to not be especially long or burdensome, but simply an effective manner to convey necessary information to the public.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we find that , section 466.0282, which requires Florida-licensed [1216]*1216dentists to include a disclaimer when advertising a specialty area not recognized by the ADA/the Board and when advertising membership in and credentials from non-state approved credentialing organizations, is constitutional under the First Amendment. The state has a substantial interest in regulating the dental profession, establishing uniform standards for certification, and in ensuring that dentists’ advertisements are not misleading to consumers. The statute as it reads advances this interest in a direct and material way; survey results have shown that the public is likely to assume that those advertising a dental “specialty” are in fact certified by the state in that specialty, and including a disclaimer in these advertisements will alert the public to this misconception. Moreover, the current disclaimer requirement is the least restrictive means available to accomplish the state’s objective. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Borgner and the AAID and remand the case back to that court, with instructions to grant the Board’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
REVERSED and REMANDED.