骨移植材とは？費用の見方と痛み｜證據鏈

骨移植材とは？費用の見方と痛み｜證據鏈

F-Units（事実単位帳）

Each entry states confidence / basis / period / geo / verbatim span / caveat. Basis hierarchy: law > official_statement > clinical_guideline > peer_reviewed > textbook.

• F1｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (Taiwan Medical Care Act Article 21; National Laws and Regulations Database HTTP 200 verified 2026-08-06)｜period: 現行条文｜geo: TW｜span:「醫療機構收取醫療費用之標準，由直轄市、縣（市）主管機關核定之。」｜caveat: The provision itself contains no amount; this card cites no approved amount.
• F2｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (Taiwan Medical Care Act Article 22; HTTP 200 verified 2026-08-06)｜period: 現行条文｜geo: TW｜span:「醫療機構收取醫療費用，應開給載明收費項目及金額之收據。」「醫療機構不得違反收費標準，超額或擅立收費項目收費。」｜caveat: This is an administrative rule on fees, not legal advice for an individual case.
• F3｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (Taiwan Medical Care Act Article 63; HTTP 200 verified 2026-08-06)｜period: 現行条文｜geo: TW｜span:「醫療機構實施手術，應向病人或其法定代理人、配偶、親屬或關係人說明手術原因、手術成功率或可能發生之併發症及危險，並經其同意，簽具手術同意書及麻醉同意書，始得為之。但情況緊急者，不在此限。」｜caveat: Cited for its disclosure and consent requirements; no legal conclusion is made about an individual case.
• F4｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (Taiwan Medical Care Act Article 81; HTTP 200 verified 2026-08-06)｜period: 現行条文｜geo: TW｜span:「醫療機構診治病人時，應向病人或其法定代理人、配偶、親屬或關係人告知其病情、治療方針、處置、用藥、預後情形及可能之不良反應。」｜caveat: Statutory quotation, not legal advice.
• F5｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (Taiwan Medical Care Act Article 87 paragraph 2; HTTP 200 verified 2026-08-06)｜period: 現行条文｜geo: TW｜span:「醫學新知或研究報告之發表、病人衛生教育、學術性刊物，未涉及招徠醫療業務者，不視為醫療廣告。」｜caveat: This provision is the basis for this card's compliance note.
• F6｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (National Health Insurance Act Article 51 subparagraph 11; HTTP 200 verified 2026-08-06)｜period: 現行条文｜geo: TW｜span:「義齒、義眼、眼鏡、助聽器、輪椅、拐杖及其他非具積極治療性之裝具。」｜caveat: The provision lists non-covered items. Whether a graft-related procedure is covered depends on current National Health Insurance Administration notices; this card makes no coverage determination. The same anchor is also used in KM-DENTAL-09 and KM-DENTAL-28.
• F7｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (Medical Devices Act Article 25 paragraph 1; HTTP 200 verified 2026-08-06)｜period: 現行条文｜geo: TW｜span:「製造、輸入醫療器材，應向中央主管機關申請查驗登記，經核准發給醫療器材許可證後，始得為之。但經中央主管機關公告之品項，其製造、輸入應以登錄方式為之。」｜caveat: This card cites only the existence of registration, inspection, and licensing; it makes no finding about the approval status of any specific product. In this search, an official license lookup interface that could be verified was unavailable (info.fda.gov.tw could not be resolved by local DNS on 2026-08-06), so this card provides no online lookup link and only advises requesting the written product name from the institution.
• F8｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (Cochrane systematic review, PMID 33899930, CD010176.pub3)｜period: 2021-03-19 まで検索、2021 年刊行。2015 年初版の更新版。2026-08-06 に PubMed で同題 Cochrane 項目を刊行日順に検索し、より新しい pub4 は見つからず｜geo: universal｜span:「Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used.」「We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up.」「We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants.」「from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width」「ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain.」「There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data.」「There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP.」「No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful.」「Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material」「This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015.」｜caveat: Certainty of evidence is very low; do not rewrite as “grafting can prevent the need for future grafting.” Complication types are a one-sentence summary only; grading and red flags are in KM-DENTAL-28. The same anchor is also used in KM-DENTAL-09.
• F9｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review / meta-analysis, PMID 30623987)｜period: 2019 年刊行（J Clin Periodontol 46 Suppl 21）。2026-08-06 検索。より新しい同題根拠は 2022 年ネットワークメタ解析（F10）。本項は「抜歯のみ」との比較の統合効果の出典｜geo: universal｜span:「All these different ARP modalities were compared to the control therapy (i.e. spontaneous socket healing) in each individual study after a 3- to 6-month healing period.」「The results of a pooled quantitative analysis revealed that ARP via socket grafting (ARP-SG), as compared to tooth extraction alone, prevents horizontal (M = 1.99 mm; 95% CI 1.54-2.44; p < 0.00001), vertical mid-buccal (M = 1.72 mm; 95% CI 0.96-2.48; p < 0.00001) and vertical mid-lingual (M = 1.16 mm; 95% CI 0.81-1.52; p < 0.00001) bone resorption.」「A specific quantitative analysis showed that sites presenting a buccal bone thickness >1.0 mm exhibited more favourable ridge preservation outcomes (difference between ARP [AG + SS] and control = 3.2 mm), as compared to sites with a thinner buccal wall (difference between ARP [AG + SS] and control = 1.29 mm).」「Whether there is a superior ARP or SS approach could not be determined on the basis of the selected evidence.」｜caveat: Pooled values are population estimates of between-group differences, not millimeter values an individual can expect. A 2020 erratum (J Clin Periodontol 47(1):129) did not alter the numerical passages cited here.
• F10｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review / network meta-analysis, PMID 34826029)｜period: 2021-03 まで検索、2022 年刊行。2026-08-06 検索。その後の同題ネットワークメタ解析は 2025 年自家歯質顆粒など単一材料主題が中心で、本論文を置き換える広範な更新版は見つからず｜geo: universal｜span:「Eighty-eight RCTs were included, with a total of 2805 patients and 3073 sockets.」「Overall, a total of 1740 sockets underwent alveolar ridge preservation with different materials (1432 were covered by a membrane).」「Pairwise meta-analysis showed that, as compared to spontaneous healing, all materials statistically significantly reduced horizontal and vertical shrinkage.」「According to the multidimensional scale ranking of the NMA, xenografts (XG) and allografts (AG), alone or combined with bioactive agents (Bio + AG), were the most predictable materials for horizontal and vertical ridge dimension preservation, while platelet concentrates performed best in the percentage of new bone formation.」「even if they presented the worst histological outcomes」｜caveat: Network-meta-analysis rankings are study-level relative comparisons and cannot be extrapolated as individual efficacy. This card cites no product name.
• F11｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review / meta-analysis, PMID 30624791)｜period: 2018-05 まで検索、2019 年刊行。2026-08-06 検索。同じ臨床問題の 2023 年ネットワークメタ解析（PMID 30624791）は KM-DENTAL-28 で使用。本項は材料とバリア膜の効果面として保持｜geo: universal｜span:「In these included studies and populations, various modalities for primary lateral bone augmentation rendered implant placement feasible.」「Bone width gain was significantly inversely associated with baseline bone width (pooled effect: -0.35 mm/mm; 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.07 mm; p = 0.01).」「The presence of xenograft added to autologous graft led to less resorption compared to autologous graft alone (MD: 1.06 mm; 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.92 mm; p = 0.01).」「Barrier membrane did not yield significant difference in terms of bone width gain (MD: -0.33 mm; 95% CI: -2.24 to 1.58 mm; p > 0.05)」「However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate due to bias and imprecision.」｜caveat: The authors described evidence quality as very low to moderate. “No significant difference with a membrane” is this review's finding for bone-width gain, not that a barrier membrane is clinically unnecessary. The same anchor is also used in KM-DENTAL-09.
• F12｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline (consensus report and clinical recommendations, PMID 31215112, Group 3 of the XV European Workshop in Periodontology)｜period: 2019 年刊行｜geo: universal｜span:「The group identified six considerations that should assist clinicians in clinical decision-making: presence of infection, inability to achieve primary stability in the restoratively driven position, presence of a damaged alveolus, periodontal phenotype, aesthetic demands and systemic conditions.」「The group emphasized that the evidence base mostly relates to single tooth extraction/replacement; hence, external validity/applicability to multiple extractions requires careful consideration.」｜caveat: A consensus-level document; this card cites only its decision considerations, not recommendations for individual procedures.
• F13｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review / meta-analysis, PMID 30624789)｜period: 2018-05 まで検索、2019 年刊行。2026-08-06 検索。その後の同題レビューは特定材料または細胞治療に集中し、長期効果で本論文を置き換える更新版は見つからず｜geo: universal｜span:「Inclusion criteria were prospective studies with follow-up ≥5 years and a residual bone height ≤6 mm.」「Meta-analysis revealed a weighted annual implant loss of 0.43% (95% CI: 0.37%-0.49%).」「Meta-regression analysis did not reveal significant differences in implant loss neither between edentulous and dentate patients nor implants placed simultaneously with or delayed after MSFA, nor implants placed in MSFA using solely autologous bone or bone substitutes.」｜caveat: Limited to the lateral-window technique and people with residual bone height ≤6 mm; annual failure rate is a population estimate, not an individual risk.
• F14｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review / meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis, PMID 38757030)｜period: 1980-01 から 2023-05 を検索、2024 年刊行｜geo: universal｜span:「Seventeen studies, including 547 sinuses and 696 implants, were pooled for the meta-analysis.」「The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between MSFE without bone grafts and conventional MSFE in terms of the implant survival rate in the short term」「Although conventional MSFE had a higher endo-sinus bone gain (n = 13, I2 = 89%, weighted mean difference (WMD): -1.24, 95% CI: -1.91- -0.57, p = 0.0003, RIS = 461), this was not a determining factor in implant survival.」「This systematic review revealed that both non-graft and grafted MSFE had high implant survival rates. Owing to the moderate strength of the evidence and short-term follow-up, the results should be interpreted with caution.」｜caveat: A clinical-decision comparison, not evidence that a patient may independently choose no filling; follow-up was short and evidence strength moderate.
• F15｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 40806953)｜period: 2025-06 まで検索、2025 年刊行｜geo: universal｜span:「Six articles were finally included based on the exclusion and inclusion criteria with a total of 295 patients.」「The overall study quality was low, since only two RCTs could be included.」「Meta-analysis was not achievable due to a lack of direct comparisons and heterogeneity in terms of PROMs.」「this systematic review concluded that ABB and GBR are well-tolerated procedures. Trends such as transient postoperative pain and swelling with a minor occurring of neurosensory disturbances were reported in a few studies.」「Patient-reported outcomes were only analyzed for patients who completed the entire follow-up period. This may introduce bias, as patients who dropped out and were more likely to experience complications were not represented, potentially resulting in a more favorable portrayal of the outcomes.」｜caveat: Only 6 articles were included and 2 were randomized controlled trials. The authors reported low quality and survivor bias; do not rewrite as a promise or comparison of pain level. Postoperative-discomfort timing and complication grading are in KM-DENTAL-28.
• F16｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (technical note / case series, PMID 38398468)｜period: 2024 年刊行｜geo: universal｜span:「All cases were performed under local anesthesia.」｜caveat: A low-level case-series procedural description, used only for the procedural fact that bone augmentation in the literature was performed under local anesthesia; it supports no efficacy or pain inference. Individual anesthesia is decided by the clinician for the patient.
• F17｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review / meta-analysis, PMID 31860134)｜period: 1990 から 2019 年のランダム化比較試験を採用、2020 年刊行。欧州歯周病連盟 S3 指針の委託レビューの一つ。2026-08-06 検索、より新しい同題根拠は F18・F19｜geo: universal｜span:「Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on regenerative treatment of deep intra-bony defects (≥3 mm) with a follow-up of at least 12 months.」「A total of 79 RCTs (88 articles) published from 1990 to 2019 and accounting for 3,042 patients and 3,612 intra-bony defects were included in this systematic review.」「All regenerative procedures provided adjunctive benefit in terms of CAL gain (1.34 mm; 0.95-1.73) compared with open flap debridement alone.」「Among biomaterials, the addition of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) improved the clinical outcomes of both GTR with resorbable barriers and EMD.」「The strength of evidence was low to moderate.」｜caveat: Limited to intra-bony defects ≥3 mm deep, and only 10 included studies had low risk of bias; do not extrapolate as “grafting works for every loose tooth.”
• F18｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review / network meta-analysis, PMID 33289191)｜period: 追跡 ≥3 年のランダム化比較試験を採用、2021 年刊行｜geo: universal｜span:「Thirty RCTs, presenting data 3 to 20 years after treatment with grafting, GTR, EMD, as monotherapies, combinations thereof, and/or adjunctive use of blood-derived growth factor constructs or with OFD only, were included.」「Tooth loss after regenerative/reconstructive treatment was less frequent (0.4%) compared to OFD (2.8%), but the evidence was sparse.」「A clear hierarchy could, however, not be established due to limited evidence.」｜caveat: The authors explicitly state that evidence on tooth loss was sparse and could not establish a treatment hierarchy; do not rewrite as an efficacy promise.
• F19｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review / meta-analysis, PMID 40897233)｜period: 2024-12-18 まで検索、2025 年刊行。本カード歯周段で刊行年がより新しい同題根拠（検索日 2026-08-06）｜geo: universal｜span:「Twenty-one RCTs (739 patients, 828 defects) met inclusion criteria.」「Combination therapy resulted in significantly greater PPD reduction (mean difference: 0.38 mm; p = 0.02) and RBL gain (0.81 mm; p = 0.003). CAL gain showed a favorable but non-significant trend (0.30 mm; p = 0.22).」「supporting a selective rather than systematic use in periodontal regenerative procedures」｜caveat: The comparison is biologic agents alone versus biologic agents plus graft material, not grafting versus no grafting; differences were limited and the authors support selective use.
• F20｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline (S3 clinical practice guideline, PMID 32383274, European Federation of Periodontology)｜period: 2020 年刊行（2021 年に訂正）｜geo: universal｜span:「The S3 CPG approaches the treatment of periodontitis (stages I, II and III) using a pre-established stepwise approach to therapy that, depending on the disease stage, should be incremental, each including different interventions.」「Consensus was achieved on recommendations covering different interventions, aimed at (a) behavioural changes, supragingival biofilm, gingival inflammation and risk factor control; (b) supra- and sub-gingival instrumentation, with and without adjunctive therapies; (c) different types of periodontal surgical interventions; and (d) the necessary supportive periodontal care to extend benefits over time.」｜caveat: This card cites only the stepwise treatment framework, not recommendation strength for individual interventions. Clinical practice in Taiwan remains subject to the treating clinician's judgment and National Health Insurance Administration rules.
• F21｜confidence: verified｜basis: official_statement (Taipei City Government Department of Health notice and government open-data dataset)｜period: 1090117 認可。両ページを 2026-08-06 に ego-browser で到達確認し、ページ題名が逐字一致｜geo: TW｜span（頁面標題）:「臺北市政府衛生局-收費標準-「臺北市醫療機構牙科收費標準表」(1090117核定)」；資料集標題「臺北市醫療收費標準 ｜ 政府資料開放平臺」（資料集編號 121913）｜caveat: A verified example from only one county/city; other county/cities publish separately. This card cites no amount from the table and did not verify item by item whether it lists graft-related procedures.
• F22｜confidence: verified｜basis: official_statement (site browser verification, first verified 2026-08-05 and re-verified in KM-DENTAL-09 on 2026-08-06; same anchor)｜period: state on the day of verification｜geo: TW｜verification record: On the National Health Insurance Administration medical-device price-comparison site, the self-pay-difference device comparison page (INAE2011S01) had 12 device categories and the device-fee comparison page (INAE2012S01) had 8 surgery/procedure categories. document.body.innerText on both pages did not contain the character 「牙」; therefore dental self-pay items, including graft material, cannot be verified on that site｜caveat: This is the data state on the date of verification and official databases may change; cite the verification date when using it. This is the negative conclusion that the site cannot be used as a verification route, not price information.
• F23｜confidence: verified｜basis: internal_dataset (internal GSC data, not a medical basis; the entire entry is omitted in publication conversion)｜period: data window 2025-03 to 2026-08｜geo: TW｜The query family for this topic has 14 terms across 6 sites and is auditable item by item; topic-selection figures remain in draft frontmatter and internal files and are excluded from the published visible layer (decision 2026-08-05).
• F24｜no external source｜structural organization (editorial framework, not a factual claim)｜The triage of three situations, four-material ordering, six fee components, seven checklist questions, and the division-of-work statement with KM-DENTAL-28 are explanatory structures defined by this site to help patients ask the right questions. They are neither an official classification nor a clinical guideline.
• F25｜no external source｜evidence-gap statement (editorial, not pending verification)｜This card does not provide: ① any amount or price range (fees depend on county/city-approved standards and the institution's quotation); ② individualized treatment days or healing months (they depend on defect pattern and treatment plan); ③ grading of postoperative complications or red-flag criteria (these belong to KM-DENTAL-28); ④ comparison of brands of graft material or barrier membrane (this search did not obtain evidence supporting brand-level conclusions, and brand comparison is outside health education); ⑤ legal opinions on insurance claims or contract terms.

出典一覧

PubMed entries were retrieved with E-utilities efetch on 2026-08-06 and checked word for word against their abstracts; each entry page was separately verified as HTTP 200.

• S1 Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Ali S, Faggion CM Jr, Esposito M. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;4(4):CD010176. PMID 33899930. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33899930（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；pub3＝2015 年初版之更新版，未見更新的 pub4）
• S2 Avila-Ortiz G, Chambrone L, Vignoletti F. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation interventions following tooth extraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46 Suppl 21:195-223. PMID 30623987. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30623987（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S3 Canullo L, Del Fabbro M, Khijmatgar S, et al. Dimensional and histomorphometric evaluation of biomaterials used for alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(1):141-158. PMID 34826029. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34826029（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S4 Naenni N, Lim HC, Papageorgiou SN, Hämmerle CHF. Efficacy of lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46 Suppl 21:287-306. PMID 30624791. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30624791（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S5 Tonetti MS, Jung RE, Avila-Ortiz G, et al. Management of the extraction socket and timing of implant placement: Consensus report and clinical recommendations of group 3 of the XV European Workshop in Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46 Suppl 21:183-194. PMID 31215112. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31215112（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S6 Raghoebar GM, Onclin P, Boven GC, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. Long-term effectiveness of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46 Suppl 21:307-318. PMID 30624789. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30624789（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S7 Chen J, Lu Y, Xu J, Hua Z. Clinical evaluation of maxillary sinus floor elevation with or without bone grafts: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with trial sequential analysis. Arch Med Sci. 2024;20(2):384-401. PMID 38757030. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38757030（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S8 Salahi S, Shaar MK, Pitman J, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Intraoral Bone Block Augmentation Compared to GBR Procedures Prior to Implant Placement: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med. 2025;14(15):5331. PMID 40806953. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40806953（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S9 Sohn DS, Lui A, Choi H. Utilization of Tenting Pole Abutments for the Reconstruction of Severely Resorbed Alveolar Bone: Technical Considerations and Case Series Reports. J Clin Med. 2024;13(4):1156. PMID 38398468. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38398468（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；病例系列，僅用於程序描述）
• S10 Nibali L, Koidou VP, Nieri M, Barbato L, Pagliaro U, Cairo F. Regenerative surgery versus access flap for the treatment of intra-bony periodontal defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47 Suppl 22:320-351. PMID 31860134. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31860134（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S11 Stavropoulos A, Bertl K, Spineli LM, Sculean A, Cortellini P, Tonetti M. Medium- and long-term clinical benefits of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures in intrabony defects: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical studies. J Clin Periodontol. 2021;48(3):410-430. PMID 33289191. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289191（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S12 Valente NA, Pileri C, Floris L, Carrus N, Natto ZS, Clementini M. Clinical outcomes of periodontal regeneration using biologic agents alone or in combination with graft materials for intrabony defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2025;162:106080. PMID 40897233. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40897233（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S13 Sanz M, Herrera D, Kebschull M, et al. Treatment of stage I-III periodontitis-The EFP S3 level clinical practice guideline. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47 Suppl 22:4-60. PMID 32383274. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32383274（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S14 醫療法 第 21 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=21（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，條文逐字對得上）
• S15 醫療法 第 22 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=22（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，條文逐字對得上）
• S16 醫療法 第 63 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=63（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，條文逐字對得上）
• S17 醫療法 第 81 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=81（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，條文逐字對得上）
• S18 醫療法 第 87 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=87（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，第 2 項逐字對得上）
• S19 全民健康保險法 第 51 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0060001 flno=51（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，第 11 款逐字對得上）
• S20 醫療器材管理法 第 25 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0030106 flno=25（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，第 1 項逐字對得上）
• S21 臺北市政府衛生局－收費標準：「臺北市醫療機構牙科收費標準表」(1090117核定)。health.gov.taipei 收費標準頁（取用 2026-08-06，ego-browser 實測可達，頁面標題與頁面文字逐字對得上）
• S22 政府資料開放平臺 資料集「臺北市醫療收費標準」（資料集編號 121913）。data.gov.tw/dataset/121913（取用 2026-08-06，ego-browser 實測可達，標題逐字對得上）
• S23 衛生福利部中央健康保險署「醫材比價網」自付差額醫材比價查詢頁與醫材收費比價查詢頁。info.nhi.gov.tw INAE2011S01、info.nhi.gov.tw INAE2012S01（實測紀錄見 F22；兩軌類別皆不含牙科，本卡引用其為「不可用作牙科查證管道」之依據）
• S24 內部資料：`analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` 第 24 題附錄（14 診所站 GSC 全量，資料窗 2025-03～2026-08），14 詞項跨 6 站，逐筆可對帳。非醫學事實 basis，僅為選題與熱詞依據。
• S25 編輯框架（無外部來源）：本卡的三種情況分流、材料四類排列、費用六塊拆項與 checklist 結構，見 F24、F25。

内部引用チェーン

• Related in-depth card (division-of-work counterpart): Can bone grafting have sequelae? What if it fails? (KM-DENTAL-28, draft). Postoperative complication triage, red-flag signs, effects of complications on bone-gain outcomes, and personal risk factors such as smoking and glucose control are all in that card. This card gives only a one-sentence summary and links to it. The two cards share Cochrane and Taiwan-law anchors with identical verbatim spans.
• Fee-language teaching card: How much does one dental implant really cost? There is no official price, but you can understand the quotation (KM-DENTAL-09, draft). Grafting often appears in the “bone management” component of an implant quotation; that card explains four quotation components and reconciliation methods. The two cards share Medical Care Act Articles 21 and 22, National Health Insurance Act Article 51, and the verified finding that the medical-device price-comparison site excludes dentistry.
• Natural-healing comparison after extraction: How long does an extraction socket take to heal? (KM-DENTAL-01, draft). That card explains what “spontaneous healing,” the comparator for alveolar ridge preservation, looks like and its timeline.

Publication-gate reminder: This card is a draft and must not enter km_entries until the zh-Hans / en / ja versions are produced. The online medical-device license lookup interface in F7 could not be verified in this work because DNS did not resolve it; retain “ask the institution for the written product name,” and do not rewrite it as an online lookup instruction. F21 did not verify item by item whether the Taipei fee-standard table lists graft-related procedures; that link is only an institutional example that fees are approved by county/city.