My dentist says I need a “dental pin” after root-canal treatment—what is it, and is it necessary?

My dentist says I need a “dental pin” after root-canal treatment—what is it, and is it necessary?

Direct answer in 60 characters

Direct answer: “Dental pin” is not an official term. In ordinary Chinese it can mean a post and core after root-canal treatment, an orthodontic miniscrew, or an implant (an artificial tooth root) [F3][F4][F5]. First ask which one your dentist means.

Geographic scope: This guide is specific to Taiwan's healthcare system (National Health Insurance and Taiwan's Medical Care Act). The institutional, fee-item, and verification sections cite Taiwan law, documents approved by local health authorities, and the central medical-device classification database; the medical-evidence sections cite international literature. These are separately labelled in the F-Unit ledger. The official English text of Taiwan’s Medical Care Act is https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0020021 .

If something has gone wrong now—an item fell out, cannot be found, or there is swelling or pain in the mouth—go directly to “When to contact the clinic promptly” below. The situations that cannot wait are stated at the start of that section [F25].

A 30-second distinction: “dental pin” can mean three different things

One point can be checked directly: the words “dental pin” do not appear in the official sources checked for this card. On 2026-08-06, the Taiwan medical-device classification database returned 0 records for the query “牙釘” [F6]. A `pdftotext` extraction of Taipei’s approved dental-fee schedule also contained none of those two characters [F7].

It is therefore patient language, not an institutional name. In a clinic or search box it can mean at least these three things [F3][F4][F5]:

• 1. Post and core—a post placed in the root canal of a tooth that has already received root-canal treatment, to support and retain the crown above it. MeSH defines the term as a use of a metal casting, usually with a post in the pulp or root canal, to support and retain an artificial crown [F3]. Taipei’s approved schedule calls the two fee items “cast post and core” and “prefabricated post and core” [F7].
• 2. Orthodontic miniscrew (`miniscrew` / `mini-implant` / `microimplant` / `temporary anchorage device`, TAD)—placed in bone in the mouth as an anchorage point for orthodontic force. The literature describes it as a temporary skeletal-anchorage device that is relatively easy to place and remove [F18]. Its location is not limited to alveolar bone: the site-specific meta-analysis includes positions between roots (`interradicular`) as well as midpalatal, paramedian, parapalatal, and zygomatic buttress sites [F22]. The corresponding MeSH heading is Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures: attachment of orthodontic devices and materials in the mouth for support and counterforce [F4].
• 3. Dental implant—the “screw” used in implant dentistry. MeSH defines it as biocompatible material placed into or onto the jawbone to support a crown, bridge, or artificial tooth, or to stabilize a diseased tooth [F5]. The corresponding Taipei fee item is “dental implant placement surgery,” whose notice says the technical fee for placing the artificial tooth root excludes the artificial-root material fee [F8].

These are not three names for one procedure; they are three different procedures. Their locations differ (pulp chamber or root canal [F3] / oral bony sites, including between roots and sites outside the alveolus [F22] / jawbone [F5]); so do their purposes (supporting and retaining an artificial crown [F3] / support and counterforce for orthodontic forces [F4] / supporting a crown, bridge, or artificial tooth, or stabilizing a diseased tooth [F5]). Their intended duration differs as well: the orthodontic miniscrew is described as temporary and relatively easy to place and remove [F18]. A post and core and an implant are devices that remain in the mouth with a restoration for the longer term; that last statement is this card’s plain-language comparison, not wording from those definitions [F25].

⚠️ Do not classify yourself by asking whether you are missing an entire tooth. The implant definition also includes “to stabilize a diseased tooth” [F5], so it is not limited to a whole missing tooth. Names overlap too: MeSH lists Mini Dental Implant as a synonym under Dental Implants [F5], and the orthodontic-miniscrew review used Mini Dental Implant among its search terms [F18]. The dependable distinction is the formal name your dentist gives the procedure [F25].

A related point: “bone screw” is also ambiguous in Chinese

If you encounter the Chinese term for “bone screw,” it likewise has more than one meaning. MeSH defines Bone Screws as specialized devices used in orthopedic surgery to repair fractures [F9]. The Taiwan classification database returned 3 records for the Chinese query: two in the N-orthopedics category and one F-dentistry bone-cutting device and accessory, which is a surgical instrument rather than an implant [F6]. Thus, in official classification, that term commonly points to orthopedic fracture-fixation devices, not an orthodontic anchorage miniscrew. The same database returned 0 records for the Chinese query for “anchorage” [F6].

First meaning: post and core after root-canal treatment—what it does

After root-canal treatment, a tooth often has lost substantial tooth structure. If the remaining structure cannot retain the crown above it, a post in the root canal plus a rebuilt core can support that crown. This is the MeSH-defined post-and-core technique [F3].

Taipei’s approved dental-fee schedule separates this into two items. The wording describes fee components, not a price, and this card cites no numeric fee [F7]:

• Cast post and core (item 2-48, per post): the notice says the fee includes clinical procedures and adjustments, excludes treatment fees, includes dental-technologist fees, and varies with the metal used for casting.
• Prefabricated post and core (item 2-49, per post): the notice says the fee includes clinical procedures and adjustments, excludes treatment fees, does not include dental-technologist fees, and varies with the prefabricated-post material.

The official wording supports only this fee-component reading [F7]. Both include clinical procedures and adjustments and exclude treatment fees. The cast item includes dental-technologist fees and varies with casting metal; the prefabricated item does not include dental-technologist fees and varies with prefabricated-post material.

⚠️ This is a description of fee items, not a description of fabrication steps or fit. The schedule does not say how either is made or compare their adaptation, so this card does not infer a process from the fee field [F7][F25]. Your dentist should explain the method and the reason for selecting it. The pairing of the Taipei names with the literature terms `cast post and core` and `prefabricated post` is this card’s terminology mapping [F26]; the comparative findings are in the next section [F10][F12].

Is a post always needed? What the newest systematic review says

A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis searched to October 2024 and included 13 randomized clinical trials [F10]. Its answer is not simply “yes” or “no”; it is stratified [F10]:

• Overall, restorations with posts had a significantly lower failure rate than those without posts (RR 0.61, P = .001) [F10].
• When separated by restoration type, post use had favourable results in indirect restorations (RR 0.44, P < .001) [F10]. The original article did not define the direct/indirect terms [F25]. This card’s editorial explanation is that an indirect restoration is made in a laboratory and then bonded to the tooth, such as a crown, whereas a direct restoration is built directly in the clinic; it is not the review’s own definition [F25].
• When separated by post type, significant benefit appeared only for prefabricated fiber posts (RR 0.54, P < .001) and customizable fiberglass posts (RR 0.66, P = .001) [F10]. Cast post and core (RR 0.84, P = .66) and prefabricated metallic posts (RR 1.19, P = .67) showed no significant difference from no post [F10].
• The review classified the overall certainty of evidence as low, because of risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision [F10].

A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis found 17 clinical studies (11 prospective and 6 retrospective) suitable for quantitative analysis, covering 7,278 patients and 7,330 endodontically treated teeth. It found a statistically significant survival-rate difference between teeth with and without posts (P < 0.001). Its conclusion says post placement may improve clinical performance and survival probability. This card retains that tentative wording rather than changing it to certainty [F11].

How to read this: these are population-level comparisons, not a prediction for your particular tooth; the 2025 authors rated the evidence certainty low [F10]. The studies can address whether an approach is supported in groups, not whether your own tooth needs a post. That decision requires the dentist to assess how much tooth structure remains and what restoration is planned. The specific evidence forms of “remaining tooth structure” are the ferrule discussion below and F14’s limit on remaining coronal walls [F10][F14][F15]. Treatment and outcomes vary by person.

Comparing materials: studies do not define “failure” in the same way

This is where the question is most easily misread: change the definition of failure, and the answer can change.

A 2025 network meta-analysis, searched to November 2022 and including 25 articles, reported outcomes separately [F12]:

• For tooth fracture, fiber posts versus no post significantly reduced the outcome (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06–0.33) [F12].
• For debonding / loss of retention, metal posts ranked higher than fiber posts (metal RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12–0.46; fiber RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27–0.56) [F12].
• For secondary caries, prefabricated glass-fiber posts showed a statistically significant difference (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20–0.81) [F12].
• The GRADE certainty was moderate [F12].

Another systematic review and meta-analysis, online in 2022 and in the 2024 print issue, included 7 randomized controlled trials followed for at least 2 years. It reported overall survival of 92.8% for glass-fiber-reinforced posts and 78.1% for metal posts, but found no statistically significant difference in survival, success, or failure rates (P > .05). The authors called both “reliable materials” only when a significant amount of coronal tooth structure is missing and a post is indicated. This card keeps the condition and does not turn it into a recommendation for any material [F13][F25].

⚠️ Those two percentages cannot be subtracted. They are descriptive pooled results from the same review, which also reports no statistical significance. Treating their arithmetic difference as an outcome is an inference the original report did not make and does not support [F13][F25].

A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis included only 4 randomized trials with 3 to 7 years of follow-up. It found significantly higher survival for fiber posts than metal posts (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33–0.97, P = .04), but no observed difference in success, post debonding, or root fracture. Its conclusion has a defined scope: endodontically treated teeth with no more than two coronal walls remaining [F14].

Taken together, these four reviews do not say “which material is better” [F10][F12][F13][F14]. They say: first specify whether the outcome of interest is tooth fracture, debonding, or recurrent caries; do not drop conditions such as years of follow-up, number of remaining walls, or direct versus indirect restoration; and do not describe conclusions of differing certainty, from low to high, as settled fact. Material choice is a clinical decision based on the individual case. This card gives no self-selection rule and does not advise readers to use the numbers to demand a material change [F25].

More important than the post: how much tooth is left—`ferrule`

The literature repeatedly uses ferrule. The review examines its height, width, and circumferential extent in relation to fracture resistance and survival [F15]. This card’s plain-language explanation is the ring of remaining dentin wall below the edge covered by the crown; that is an editorial explanation, not the study’s definition [F25]. It is not root furcation, and it is not crown-lengthening surgery itself. The English term is retained to avoid mixing different anatomical concepts [F26].

• A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis included 33 primary studies: only 6 clinical studies, plus 18 in-vitro and 9 finite-element studies. Ferrule height ≥ 2 mm significantly improved fracture resistance (mean difference +165 N, 95% CI 110–215), a mechanical result from in-vitro and simulation levels. Ferrule presence increased clinical survival (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.12–1.59). The authors report that ferrule height 1.5–2.0 mm and dentin thickness ≥ 1 mm were associated with better mechanical and clinical findings, and that no restorative strategy matched the biomechanical reinforcement of a natural dentin ferrule [F15]. They also state that these findings must be interpreted in light of variation in study design and reporting quality [F15].
• A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis of teeth restored with prefabricated fiber posts found higher success with a uniform circumferential ferrule in its direct analysis (2 studies, 123 teeth; RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06–1.54, P < .05). But its indirect analysis (8 studies, 407 teeth) found no significant difference between ferrule and no-ferrule groups (P > .05); the authors call for more high-quality studies [F16].

That is why a dentist may discuss not “whether to place a post” but “how much tooth structure remains”: the reviews examine that remaining dentin ring [F15][F16]. What procedures may be considered when remaining tooth structure is insufficient, such as crown lengthening, is an indication judgment for each procedure. This card cites no source for “insufficient ferrule means a particular procedure must come first,” and makes no such claim [F25].

Does it differ between front and back teeth?

A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis of 6 studies reported an anterior-versus-posterior risk ratio of 1.06 (95% CI 0.69–1.64, P = .79); incisors versus canines 3.08 (95% CI 0.56–17.04, P = .20); premolars versus molars 0.45 (95% CI 0.12–1.74, P = .25); prefabricated glass-fiber posts in anterior versus posterior teeth 1.13 (95% CI 0.61–2.09); and metal posts 1.10 (95% CI 0.64–1.91) [F17].

Every one of those confidence intervals crosses 1, so none excludes no difference. The authors conclude that anterior and posterior teeth had similar failure rates in short- to medium-term follow-up and call for longer trials [F17]. Claims that either front or back teeth are inherently more likely to fail should therefore be checked against the source and whether its confidence interval crosses 1 [F17][F25].

Second meaning: orthodontic miniscrew—it is not an implant

Moving one tooth during orthodontics creates a counterforce elsewhere. A miniscrew has the MeSH role of providing support and counterforce to orthodontic forces [F4]. The 2025 review’s search terms include Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures, mini-implant, Mini Dental Implant, Miniscrew, and microimplant [F18]. These are names authors use for the same type of device; describing all of them in Chinese simply as “bone screws” is an editorial observation, not a formal classification [F26].

Two Taiwan-specific cautions matter. In Taipei’s approved dental-fee schedule, the orthodontics section (items 3-50 to 3-81) contains no dedicated item for an orthodontic anchorage miniscrew. A full-text `pdftotext` search for terms including bone screw, screw, anchorage, microimplant, and anchor found only 2 mentions of “bone screw,” both in oral-and-maxillofacial surgery notices [F7]. The medical-device classification database returned 15 records for the Chinese query for orthodontics, 4 in F-dentistry—planning software, bracket adhesive resin and conditioner, plastic orthodontic brackets and aligners, and extraoral headgear—but none for an orthodontic anchorage screw [F6]. A verification route must actually contain the item being sought; neither source does for this question [F6][F7]. Use the treating institution’s written explanation [F25].

What it can do: average effects at the population level

A 2025 umbrella meta-analysis, searched to October 2024, included 11 meta-analyses and 50 data sets [F20]:

• Miniscrews significantly increased intermolar width (effect size 2.61 mm, 95% CI 0.29–4.92, p = 0.02) and skeletal width (3.33 mm, 95% CI 1.37–5.29, p = 0.001).
• It found no significant impact on interpremolar width or alveolar width before and after MARPE.
• Micro-implants significantly reduced molar movement (−1.13 mm, 95% CI −1.99 to −0.26, p = 0.01). In an anchorage context, `reduced molar movement` refers to control of unwanted molar displacement; this card retains that wording and makes no further inference [F20].
• The review reported substantial heterogeneity for several outcomes that persisted after subgroup analyses [F20].

These are population-average changes, not any person’s expected result [F20][F25]. The 95% confidence interval describes uncertainty around the pooled average; it is not a gap between patients. The review calculated effect sizes and 95% CIs with a random-effects model; inconsistency between studies was separately evaluated with I² and Cochran’s Q [F20]. It reports substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%) for several outcomes despite subgroup analysis [F20]. It is valid to say study results differ, not to say an individual may fall anywhere between the interval’s endpoints [F25].

How high is success? It varies substantially by position

A 2020 umbrella review of 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported that most studies had high success rates (≥90%), while one systematic review reported low miniscrew success (≤56%). It also says results require caution because of methodological-quality gaps and high heterogeneity in the original studies [F21].

Why can the gap be this large? Position is a major factor. A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis, searched to October 2017 and including 61 studies, reported failure rates by placement site [F22]. The original uses English site terms, which are retained here to avoid inventing or confusing anatomical names:

• `midpalatal` 1.3% (95% CI 0.3–6), `paramedian` 4.8% (95% CI 1.6–13.4), and `parapalatal` 5.5% (95% CI 2.8–10.7).
• Maxillary buccal sites: between the maxillary first molar and second premolar 9.2% (95% CI 7.4–11.4); between the maxillary canine and lateral incisor 9.7% (95% CI 5.1–17.6); and `zygomatic buttress` 16.4% (95% CI 4.9–42.5). That last interval is very wide and imprecise, so it should not be used as a fixed number.
• Mandibular buccal sites: between the mandibular first molar and second premolar 13.5% (95% CI 7.3–23.6), and between the mandibular canine and first premolar 9.9% (95% CI 4.9–19.1).
• When a miniscrew contacted a root, failure risk increased, RR 8.7 (95% CI 5.1–14.7). `contacted the roots` means contact with the root of an adjacent tooth; it does not mean furcation [F22][F26].
• The review rates evidence for the site-specific failure rates very low to low. Only root contact, for interradicular miniscrews between the first molar and second premolar, has moderate certainty [F22].

A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis, searched to June 2020 and including 7 studies, calculated a miniscrew-number-weighted mean success rate of 87.21%—89.87% in the maxilla and 79.24% in the mandible—with a significantly higher maxillary rate (P < .05). The authors caution that few studies and high clinical heterogeneity require cautious interpretation [F23]. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis likewise found a higher failure risk with mandibular placement (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.17–2.91). Its comparison of mini-implants and mini-plates had RR 1.83 (95% CI 0.96–3.50, p = 0.07): the interval crosses 1 and does not reach the significance threshold, becoming significant only after sensitivity analysis [F24].

The correct use of these figures is to understand why a dentist may choose a location and why loosening sometimes occurs. They report failure by placement site and local condition, not by clinic or operator, so they cannot be used to compare clinics or practitioners [F22][F23][F24][F25]. Equally, this card does not claim operator factors are unrelated to outcomes; those sources did not test that question [F25].

Does it hurt? Evidence from patients’ perspectives

A 2025 systematic review synthesizing patients’ perspectives reports narrative conclusions: patients tend to overestimate pain inherent in the procedure; micro-implant insertion is more accepted than tooth extraction, with less postoperative pain reported; pain and discomfort are the most frequently reported outcomes and vary by site (mini interradicular screws had less discomfort than extra-alveolar screws); and most patients were satisfied or very satisfied [F18].

⚠️ These are the review authors’ narrative conclusions. The abstract does not report pooled pain quantities, so this card does not turn them into a promise of no pain [F18][F25]. Anaesthetic technique and surgical technique were also identified as factors affecting discomfort; those are clinical judgments and are not listed here [F18].

Third meaning: the “screw” used for implant dentistry—this card only directs you onward

If you mean “the screw used for an implant,” it is an artificial tooth root: MeSH defines it as biocompatible material placed into or onto the jawbone to support a crown, bridge, or artificial tooth [F5]. Taipei’s corresponding fee-item notice says the technical fee for placing the artificial tooth root excludes the artificial-root material fee [F8].

The three definitions are separate [F3][F4][F5]. A post and core is in the pulp chamber or root canal and supports and retains an artificial crown [F3]. An orthodontic miniscrew is a temporary skeletal-anchorage device that is relatively easy to place and remove [F18]. An implant is placed into or onto the jawbone to support a crown, bridge, or artificial tooth, or to stabilize a diseased tooth [F5].

Pay particular attention to that last use. Because F5 does not limit implants to a whole missing tooth, “I have not lost an entire tooth” cannot exclude this branch. The dentist’s formal procedure name determines whether it applies [F5][F25]. Implant workflow, aftercare, fee components, and risks have separate KM cards and are not duplicated here.

⚠️ A further item is easy to confuse: Taipei’s schedule also has “temporary implant surgery,” described as placement and removal of a temporary implant for maintaining aesthetics or occlusion, excluding the temporary restoration and implant materials [F8]. That is a temporary implant for prosthetic purposes, not orthodontic anchorage. The classification database also lists an endodontic stabilizing splint (grade 2), defined as a device made of materials such as titanium and placed through a root canal into the upper or lower jaw to stabilize a tooth. It is another device that passes through a root canal into jawbone, not the post and core described in the first branch [F6].

When to contact the clinic promptly

Do not wait: deal with the airway first

Whether the fallen item is a crown, post and core, miniscrew, or any fragment: if choking/coughing, breathing difficulty, inability to speak, or chest pain occurs at the same time, this is an emergency—seek medical care immediately and do not wait for the clinic to reply [F25]. A small fallen item may have been swallowed or aspirated; those situations need different medical assessment. This card provides no self-triage method and deliberately gives no “observe for X time” threshold [F25].

Other situations: contact your clinic promptly

This is not a symptom-severity scale; it is only a prompt for what to do first. Every item needs a dentist’s assessment, and this card gives no self-treatment method. If an airway situation from the preceding section is present, always follow that section first [F25].

1. A crown falls out with a piece attached to it: keep the entire item and take it to the clinic; do not glue it back yourself. A separate KM card explains why self-bonding is not advised [F25].
2. Pain on biting, repeated gum swelling, or tooth mobility: these are signals for a dentist to check; a problem with a post or root cannot be determined from appearance.
3. An orthodontic miniscrew is loose, falls out, or has surrounding redness, swelling, or pain: contact the orthodontist to arrange review. Loss of miniscrew stability is a quantified literature outcome, but what to do is for the dentist to determine [F22][F24][F25]. If the fallen screw cannot be found, return first to “Do not wait” above [F25].
4. Any miniscrew or device has fallen out and cannot be found: first use “Do not wait” above to check for an airway situation. If none is present, tell the dentist directly and describe the circumstances (when you noticed it missing and what you were doing); the dentist decides whether further examination is needed [F25].
5. You do not know which “pin” the dentist means: ask at the visit, “Is this a post and core, an orthodontic miniscrew, or an artificial tooth root?” The three-way distinction in this card exists for that question [F3][F4][F5].

Risk factors: conditions associated with poorer results

Posts and cores and orthodontic miniscrews both have indications, risks, and contraindications. The following are conditions recorded in the literature, not a self-screening list, and must be assessed by a dentist [F25].

• Post-and-core side: remaining tooth structure and ferrule are repeatedly examined, but both review results must be presented. One meta-analysis links ferrule presence with higher clinical survival (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.12–1.59), while most included studies were in-vitro or simulation studies (only 6 clinical of 33) [F15]. Another meta-analysis of prefabricated fiber posts found greater success in direct analysis (2 studies, 123 teeth) with uniform circumferential ferrule but no significant difference in indirect analysis (8 studies, 407 teeth) [F16]. These are study-level groups, not a fixed expectation for your tooth [F25]. Different post materials correspond to different failure outcomes—fracture, debonding, and secondary caries [F12]. Current certainty ranges from low to moderate, and new trials may change conclusions [F10][F12]. Recorded failure types include tooth fracture, post debonding, and secondary caries [F12][F14].
• Orthodontic-miniscrew side: placement site (palatal sites were relatively lower and zygomatic buttress relatively higher in the cited classification) [F22]; higher failure risk in the mandible than maxilla [F23][F24]; root contact significantly increasing failure risk [F22]; and pain and discomfort as the most frequently reported patient outcomes [F18].
• Shared: all are population-level observations. Individual conditions such as bone quality, occlusion, oral hygiene, existing disease, and medication affect results. Treatment and outcomes vary by person and need a dentist’s assessment [F25].
• Under Article 81 of Taiwan’s Medical Care Act, a medical institution treating a patient must inform the patient or relevant person of the condition, treatment policy, procedure, medication, prognosis, and possible adverse reactions [F2]. “Possible adverse reactions” is something you may ask the clinic to explain directly.

Checklist before your appointment (8 questions)

1. Which type of “dental pin” is this: post and core, orthodontic miniscrew, or artificial tooth root?
2. If it is a post and core, how much tooth structure remains, and is there enough uniform circumferential dentin (`ferrule`)?
3. What restoration is planned—an indirect or direct restoration?
4. Is the plan a cast or prefabricated post and core, and why?
5. If it is done, what needs the closest attention afterwards, and how are problems usually detected?
6. If it is an orthodontic miniscrew, where will it be placed, will it be removed after treatment, and whom should I contact if it loosens?
7. Is there an option not to place it now? How do the options differ, and what additional treatment might be needed later?
8. On the written receipt, what are the item name and unit, and does it include the crown or other items? Under Article 22 of Taiwan’s Medical Care Act, a medical institution collecting a medical fee must issue a receipt stating the fee item and amount [F1].

How to find a clinic that provides this service

This site lists no clinics and does not recommend, rate or compare any medical institution.

To find a clinic that provides this service, use the following official lookup channels yourself —

they are maintained by the competent authorities and are more current than any list:

>

- The Ministry of Health and Welfare's medical-institution lookup: search by city or county,

township and specialty (dentistry) for institutions that have completed practice registration.

The results show the institution's name, address and registered specialty. This is the first place

to confirm whether a clinic is lawfully registered.

- The National Health Insurance Administration's contracted-institution lookup: check whether a

clinic is under contract with National Health Insurance. This determines which items are covered

and which are self-paid, and therefore what kind of fee explanation you will be given.

>

Both systems are on the respective authorities' official websites; searching for the

medical-institution lookup or the contracted-institution lookup will find them. This site does not

reproduce the URLs, because they change; use whichever entry point the authority currently publishes.

>

In an emergency, do not spend time looking up lists. If your breathing, swallowing or speech is

affected, or swelling is spreading, go to the nearest emergency department.

Chinese labels to look for on the official pages

These official systems, datasets and files are published in Chinese only. The English names above are this site's renderings; on the page itself you will see the following strings, so search for these:

>

- 「醫事機構查詢」

- 「特約醫事機構查詢」

- 「特約院所查詢」

Compliance note

This is health-education information under Article 87 of Taiwan’s Medical Care Act [F2], not medical advertising. It recommends no particular institution, brand, or procedure and gives no amount or price range. Post-and-core restoration, orthodontic anchorage-miniscrew placement, and dental implantation all have risks and contraindications, including but not limited to tooth fracture, post debonding, secondary caries, screw loosening, and inflammation of surrounding tissue. Treatment and outcomes vary by person and require a dentist’s assessment. The cited literature reports population-level statistics, not a prediction of effectiveness for an individual patient or a recommendation of any material or approach. This card gives no drug names, doses, or medication advice, and no legal view on insurance reimbursement or contractual terms; related questions depend on the applicable policy and contract terms.

Every clinical statement in this article is mapped line by line to its cited source (see the sources and evidence chain below). It has not been clinically reviewed by a licensed practitioner. This is health information, not individual advice; assessment by a clinician is required.