How do I choose a Shulin dentist? Verify the official records first, then see how the first visit is explained｜證據鏈

How do I choose a Shulin dentist? Verify the official records first, then see how the first visit is explained｜證據鏈

F-Units (fact ledger)

Each entry identifies its source, confidence, basis, period, geo, and caveat. Basis hierarchy: law > official_statement > clinical_guideline > peer_reviewed > textbook.

• F1｜confidence: verified｜basis: internal_dataset (S32; not a medical claim)｜period: GSC retention window (from 2025-03-22)｜geo: TW｜topic-selection basis: fully reconciled search data for 14 clinic sites, 3 query terms, one site, reconcilable record by record; the mounted list follows the production-queue #49 field and must not be added to or reduced｜caveat: impressions are asset-level figures, not deduplicated traffic; internal data, and this whole entry is not output in the publication transform.
• F2 [structural compilation]｜confidence: n/a｜basis: editorial (S33; not a factual claim and must not be marked pending)｜geo: universal｜the card’s framework of three verification steps, first-visit observation, reading reviews, and reading fees; its position that finding a record does not equal good quality; its division of scope from urgent-care and fee cards; and its policy of no lists, rankings, clinical-skill ratings, or prices are this site’s editorially defined explanatory structure, not any authority’s classification or recommendation｜caveat: not a diagnostic tool, clinical guideline, or institution appraisal; it does not replace a dentist’s assessment.
• F3 [evidence-gap statement]｜confidence: n/a｜basis: editorial (not pending)｜geo: TW｜this search found no citable evidence for, so this card does not write about: (1) any institution list, ranking, rating, or recommendation; (2) any amount, range, or market price; (3) official statistics on Taiwan dental-clinic quality indicators; (4) Taiwan local empirical research on “how to choose a dentist”; (5) live testing of county/city health-bureau public pages for sanctions information (see F33); or (6) the content or effect of insurance reimbursement clauses (a contractual matter on which this site gives no legal view)｜caveat: the search was limited to PubMed English literature, the National Laws and Regulations Database, Ministry of Health and Welfare and NHI Administration public search systems, and New Taipei City Government notice pages; not found does not mean disproved.
• F4｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title “Medical Care Act §15—National Laws and Regulations Database”; statutory text matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S14)｜period: current statutory text｜geo: TW｜Article 15 of Taiwan’s Medical Care Act: an institution must apply to the local municipality or county/city competent authority for approval and registration and receive a practice licence before opening; a change in registered particulars must be registered within thirty days from the date it occurs｜caveat: statutory quotation, not legal advice.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫療法§15-全國法規資料庫」]
• F5｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title “Medical Care Act §18—National Laws and Regulations Database”; statutory text matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S15)｜period: current statutory text｜geo: TW｜Article 18 of Taiwan’s Medical Care Act: a medical institution must have one responsible physician supervising its medical work; in a private medical institution, its applicant is also the responsible physician｜caveat: statutory quotation, not legal advice; Paragraph 2 separately sets training-qualification requirements for the responsible physician, which this card does not cite.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫療法§18-全國法規資料庫」]
• F6｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title and four drop-down lists read item by item)｜basis: official_statement (S24)｜period: live-loaded 2026-08-06｜geo: TW｜page title: “Ministry of Health and Welfare—Practitioner Information System—Medical Institution Search”; it says it provides public information on institutions currently in operation and directs questions to the health authority where the institution is located. Conditions are institution name, type, location area (county/city plus township/district), clinical department, and verification code. Types include medical institution, denture workshop, and dental laboratory. Location uses county/city (including New Taipei City) and township/district lists; on loading, the latter was a nationwide list of 369 options including Shulin District. Departments include general dentistry｜caveat: this site read only the interface and explanatory text, submitted no name or institution search, and obtained no institution list; this is an administrative check of lawful registration, not a healthcare-quality rating. ⚠️ This site could not verify the linked filtering behaviour between the county/city and township/district menus: the county/city menu has an onchange handler, updateZip, but after this site programmatically triggered a change in the test environment the option count did not change, and the function was not defined in the accessible page scope. This card therefore claims only that the township/district option list contains Shulin District, not that it filters automatically by county/city.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「衛生福利部-醫事查詢系統-醫事機構查詢」]
• F7｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title and two drop-down lists read item by item)｜basis: official_statement (S25)｜period: live-loaded 2026-08-06｜geo: TW｜page title: “Ministry of Health and Welfare—Practitioner Information System—Practitioner Search”; it says it lets the public check whether a healthcare provider is lawfully practising and directs identity questions to the health authority where the institution is located. The search requires the person’s name (the page says at least two characters) and a verification code, with practitioner type and county/city of practice selectable; types include dentist and counties/cities include New Taipei City｜caveat: this site submitted no real name search; the page also says that victim information protected under Article 50-1 of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act and Article 10 of the Stalking and Harassment Prevention Act, among other laws, is not public, so no result does not necessarily mean no practice.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「衛生福利部-醫事查詢系統-醫事人員查詢」]
• F8｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title and practitioner-type options read item by item)｜basis: official_statement (S26)｜period: live-loaded 2026-08-06｜geo: TW｜page title: “Ministry of Health and Welfare—Practitioner Information System—Practitioner Discipline Platform Area”; breadcrumb: “Practitioner Information System > Practitioner Disciplinary Decision Search Area.” Practitioner types are physician, dentist, Chinese medicine physician, and pharmaceutical personnel. It says published decisions are cases made by health bureaus in the 5 years preceding the search and published in local-government gazettes under the physician-discipline and pharmacist-discipline/review-committee rules, and that contents are updated as health bureaus actually supply them｜caveat: this site submitted no search, obtained no individual-case data, and comments on no individual case; coverage is limited to the preceding five years and to what health bureaus provide, so no result is not a positive evaluation.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「衛生福利部-醫事查詢系統-醫事人員懲戒平台專區」]
• F9｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser and one real search submitted; drop-down lists read item by item; result-page title and search-condition row compared verbatim)｜basis: official_statement (S27)｜period: live-tested 2026-08-06｜geo: TW｜search-page title: “Ministry of Health and Welfare National Health Insurance Administration—NHI-contracted healthcare institution search.” The county/city menu includes New Taipei City and, after selection, the township/district menu showed New Taipei City Shulin District. Institution level/contract type includes primary-care unit. Advanced search includes Western medicine | Chinese medicine | dentistry and dental departments: dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontics, prosthodontics, orthodontics, paediatric dentistry, oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral diagnosis, oral pathology, family dentistry, and special-needs dentistry. “Programmes joined” includes the integrated periodontal treatment programme; oral-health care programme for children aged 0-6 with severe caries; enhanced infection-control programme for dental outpatient care; special medical-service programme under the global dental outpatient budget; home dental care; and underserved-area dental medical-resource improvement programmes (practice) and (mobile service). “Preventive health care” includes preventive dental care for children and oral-mucosa examination. A search for New Taipei City / New Taipei City Shulin District / dentistry returned a page titled “Ministry of Health and Welfare National Health Insurance Administration—NHI-contracted healthcare institution search list,” with the condition row “New Taipei City | New Taipei City Shulin District | Dentistry | Service time: all, morning, afternoon, evening,” and a list of institutions meeting the conditions｜caveat: this site does not record, republish, or cite any institution name, contact detail, or count from that list (editorial policy: this card gives no list); contracting and programme participation are administrative facts, not quality certification. This same anchor is also used by KM-DENTAL-30, which cites the dental emergency pilot programme in “programmes joined.”　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「衛生福利部中央健康保險署-健保特約醫事機構查詢」、「已加入計畫」、「衛生福利部中央健康保險署-健保特約醫事機構查詢清單」]
• F10｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title “Regulations Governing Dental Specialist Divisions and Examination—National Laws and Regulations Database”; Article 6 matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S28)｜period: current Regulations amended 2023-05-02｜geo: TW｜Article 6 lists dental specialties: oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral pathology, orthodontics, periodontics, paediatric dentistry, endodontics, prosthodontics, operative dentistry, family dentistry, special-needs dentistry, implant dentistry, and other dental specialties recognised by the central competent authority｜caveat: statutory quotation, not legal advice; divisions are the statutory division of training and examination, not a ranking of ability or quality. This card does not infer healthcare quality from the presence or absence of a specialty.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「牙醫專科醫師分科及甄審辦法-全國法規資料庫」]
• F11｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; Articles 13 and 14 matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S28)｜period: current Regulations amended 2023-05-02｜geo: TW｜Article 13 says the dental-specialist certificate’s validity and each renewal are at least three years and at most six years; Article 14 includes continuing-education courses provided by competent authorities, medical schools, teaching hospitals, and relevant medical associations｜caveat: statutory quotation, not legal advice; renewal standards also list academic meetings, clinical teaching, published work, and other options. This card cites one item as an example only.
• F12｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title “Medical Care Act §85—National Laws and Regulations Database”; three provisions matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S16)｜period: current statutory text｜geo: TW｜Article 85 enumerates permitted medical-advertising content: institution name, practice-licence number, address, telephone, and route; physician name, sex, education, experience, and physician/specialist certificate number; NHI and other non-commercial insurance contracted hospital/clinic wording; clinical departments and hours; dates of opening, closure, suspension, reopening, and relocation; and other matters allowed by the central competent authority. It also says internet information supplied by a medical institution is not limited by Paragraph 1 except in the Article 103 Paragraph 2 circumstances, with management rules set by the central competent authority｜caveat: statutory quotation, not legal advice; the competent health authority determines whether an individual case violates the law. This card makes no individual-case judgement.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫療法§85-全國法規資料庫」]
• F13｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title “Medical Care Act §86—National Laws and Regulations Database”; all seven items matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S17)｜period: current statutory text｜geo: TW｜Article 86 prohibits medical advertising by using another person’s name; selling or giving medical publications; excerpting medical publications; interviews or reports; joint or side-by-side promotion with advertising contrary to the preceding article; or other improper promotion; the third item is described below in the caveat｜caveat: statutory quotation, not legal advice; this card makes no violation finding about any institution’s promotional material. The third item’s statutory wording contains terms on this site’s prohibited-word policy, so this card never reproduces it verbatim and instead describes it as the type of publicising specific formulae and publicly answering questions. For the full text use the National Laws and Regulations Database link in S17; this site live-loaded it and read all seven items verbatim on 2026-08-06.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫療法§86-全國法規資料庫」]
• F14｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title “Medical Care Act §87—National Laws and Regulations Database”; two provisions matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S18)｜period: current statutory text｜geo: TW｜Article 87 says content that implies or alludes to medical business is medical advertising; publication of medical knowledge or research reports, patient health education, and academic publications that do not solicit medical business are not medical advertising｜caveat: basis for this card’s compliance note; this same anchor is used by multiple cards in this series.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫療法§87-全國法規資料庫」]
• F15｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title “Medical Care Act §21—National Laws and Regulations Database”; statutory text matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S19)｜period: current statutory text｜geo: TW｜Article 21: standards for medical fees charged by medical institutions are approved by the competent municipality or county/city authority｜caveat: statutory quotation, not legal advice; this same anchor is also used by KM-DENTAL-03/11/26/48.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫療法§21-全國法規資料庫」]
• F16｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title “Medical Care Act §22—National Laws and Regulations Database”; two provisions matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S20)｜period: current statutory text｜geo: TW｜Article 22: a medical institution collecting medical fees must issue a receipt stating fee items and amounts, and may not violate the fee standard by overcharging or creating charge items without authority｜caveat: statutory quotation, not legal advice.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫療法§22-全國法規資料庫」]
• F17｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title “Medical Care Act §81—National Laws and Regulations Database”; statutory text matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S21)｜period: current statutory text｜geo: TW｜Article 81: when diagnosing and treating a patient, a medical institution must inform the patient or the patient’s legal representative, spouse, relative, or related person of the condition, treatment policy, procedure, medicines, prognosis, and possible adverse reactions｜caveat: statutory quotation, not legal advice.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫療法§81-全國法規資料庫」]
• F18｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title “Medical Care Act §63—National Laws and Regulations Database”; Paragraph 1 matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S22)｜period: current statutory text｜geo: TW｜Article 63: before performing surgery, a medical institution must explain the reason, surgical success rate or possible complications and risks to the patient or the listed relevant person, obtain consent, and have surgery and anaesthesia consent forms signed; emergencies are excepted｜caveat: statutory quotation, not legal advice; which dental procedures count as surgery under this Article is determined by the medical institution under applicable rules. This card does not make that classification.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫療法§63-全國法規資料庫」]
• F19｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 live-loaded with ego-browser; page title, breadcrumb, issuance/revision history, and notes read verbatim)｜basis: official_statement (S29)｜period: page live-loaded 2026-08-06; schedule issued by New Taipei City Government Order No. 1000030166 on 2011-04-13, revised by multiple notices, with the latest listed revision announced by New Taipei City Government Notice No. 1110952309 on 2022-06-01｜geo: TW｜page title: “New Taipei City Self-pay Dental Fee Schedule—New Taipei City Government”; breadcrumb: “Home / Thematic Services / Healthcare / Medical Institutions / Fee Standards / New Taipei City Self-pay Dental Fee Schedule.” Notes include: “Persons receiving care with NHI status follow the relevant NHI rules; persons without NHI status are charged under this schedule.” They also list transfer-bed fees, powder-grinding fees, hospitalisation-cancellation handling fees, extended-consultation fees, early-consultation fees, examination-scheduling fees, treatment or examination reservation fees, designated-physician fees, and additional registration-number fees as improperly created items that medical institutions may not collect｜caveat: this card cites no amount from the schedule (editorial no-price policy); it is a New Taipei City approved standard, so other counties/cities require their corresponding health-bureau notice. The notes also cover special-material pricing, deliberation procedure, and a maximum fee calculation specifically for consultation fees; all involve amounts or pricing method and are neither reproduced nor numerically cited here. ⚠️ The prose statement that listed amounts are the maximum that a medical institution may charge is a summary, not a verbatim quotation (the original also describes units of pricing and includes currency text, which this site’s format does not put on the card); only the two sentences in quotation marks in this entry are described as verbatim.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「新北市牙醫診療自費收費標準表-新北市政府」、「首頁 主題服務 醫療 醫療院所 各項收費標準 新北市牙醫診療自費收費標準表」]
• F20｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch abstract retrieved and compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (cross-sectional study, PMID 32428967)｜period: published 2020-08 (online 2020-07); on 2026-08-06 a recheck using criteria choosing a dentist, limited to 2021 through 2026 publication dates, found only F21/F22 and no newer study replacing this one｜geo: universal｜span: 「In this cross-sectional study, a convenience sample of 300 subjects involving dental patients of a university dental clinic and private dental practices, and subjects from general population (each n = 100) were included.」「A total of 189 subjects (63%) provided completed questionnaires for analyses.」「Dentists' psychosocial skills (mean 4.4) were rated as most important when choosing a dentist, whereas socio-demographic characteristics were of almost no significance (mean 1.0).」｜caveat: single German region; convenience sample; self-reported cross-sectional questionnaire. Its 0-to-5 six-point ordinal scale means must not be read as percentages or probabilities. Do not extend this to Taiwan patient preferences or use it as a selection recommendation.
• F21｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (cross-sectional telephone survey, PMID 35886163)｜period: published 2022-07-07｜geo: universal｜span: 「A telephone survey with 466 participants」「Recommendation seems to be the major aspect regarding how patients become aware of or select their dentist (n = 278, 65.6%), while modern technologies, e.g., the internet, play a subordinate role (n = 31, 7.3%).」｜caveat: telephone interviews in three German cities, stratified into ages 35 to 50, 70 to 84, and 85 or older; the sample skews older. This card does not cite its age-difference findings on accessible facilities or consultation-room equipment. “Recommendation is the majority route” describes behaviour; it is not evidence that recommendation is reliable.
• F22｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (cross-sectional telephone survey, PMID 35886473; second paper in the F21 series)｜period: published 2022-07-15｜geo: universal｜span: 「Most of the participants (n = 298, 64.2%), regardless of their own gender, age, or place of residence did not care about the gender of the dentist.」「In general, the price of the treatment does not play a role in choosing the ideal dentist.」「As age increases, professional experience and psycho-social competencies are rated as important.」「Especially for participants aged 70 to 84 years, a relationship of trust is important.」｜caveat: same sample and limitations as F21. “Price did not play a role” concerns ratings of the “ideal dentist” in that questionnaire; it does not mean Taiwan patients do not care about fees and must not be used to diminish the importance of fee transparency. This card does not cite its gender-difference findings on smoking preference or appearance.
• F23｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (mixed-methods informatics study, PMID 32673240)｜period: published 2020-07-07｜geo: universal｜span: 「we analyzed the online patient reviews of 204,751 dentists extracted from HealthGrades with two specific aims.」「Higher ratings were associated with female dentists (t71881=2.45, P<.01, g=0.01), dentists at a younger age (F7, 107128=246.97, P<.001, g=0.11), and those whose patients experienced a short wait time (F4, 150055=10417.77, P<0.001, g=0.18).」「We also identified several topics that corresponded to CAHPS measures, including discomfort (eg, painful/painless root canal or deep cleaning), and ethics (eg, high-pressure sales, and unnecessary dental work).」｜caveat: observational data from one United States review site; effect sizes (g) are very small (0.01 to 0.18), statistically significant but of limited clinical meaning. Association with ratings is not causation. This card cites it only to show that stars mix in non-clinical factors; do not reverse it into claims that dentists in any group are better or worse.
• F24｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (randomized experiment, PMID 25862516)｜period: published 2015-04-09｜geo: universal｜span: 「We employed a randomized 2x2 between-subject, factorial experiment manipulating the style of a physician review (factual vs emotional) and the number of reviews for a certain physician (low vs high) to test our hypotheses.」「A total of 168 participants were presented with a Web-based questionnaire containing a short description of a dentist search scenario and the manipulated reviews for a fictitious dental physician.」「Our analyses indicated that a higher number of reviews resulted in a more positive attitude toward the rated physician.」「Our analyses also showed that perceived credibility of the review fully mediated the observed interaction effect on attitude toward the physician.」｜caveat: the experiment used a fictitious physician and manipulated reviews, not real care decisions; 168 participants in one country. It concerns a change in attitude, not actual choice or treatment outcome. This card cites it only to show that review number and style themselves affect judgement.
• F25｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (qualitative thematic analysis, PMID 34875189)｜period: published 2022-07 (online 2021-12)｜geo: universal｜span: 「11,764 online patient reviews of dental encounters, consisting of an overall satisfaction rating (1-5 stars) and a free-text response, were collected from the web-site Legelisten.no.」「Five key themes to both challenging and positive patient encounters were identified: (1) Interpersonal factors, (2) Patient factors, (3) Dentist factors, (4) Situational factors, and (5) Consequences.」｜caveat: qualitative thematic analysis of one Norwegian review site, not a representative sample (review writers are a self-selected group). The theme synthesis provides no proportion and must not be used to infer any institution’s or country’s quality distribution.
• F26｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 39871285)｜period: published 2025-01-27｜geo: universal｜span: 「A systematic literature review was conducted across four databases, yielding an initial 76 articles. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 12 articles were selected for analysis.」「The commodification of dental care, fueled by aggressive marketing strategies, has resulted in a notable increase in overtreatment, where unnecessary procedures are performed to satisfy commercial pressures and idealized beauty standards.」「The review highlights a lack of robust ethical guidelines governing marketing practices in aesthetic dentistry, exacerbating these issues.」｜caveat: only 12 studies were included, data were extracted as a narrative synthesis, and there was no meta-analysis; scope is cosmetic dentistry only. “Notable increase” is qualitative wording with no quantified proportion; it must not be rewritten as a percentage or incidence. Do not use it to refer to any particular country, market, or institution.
• F27｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (questionnaire survey, PMID 31654011)｜period: published 2019-10｜geo: universal｜span: 「However, there may be large variability in the restorative intervention thresholds and care plans of general dental practitioners (GDPs).」「Two hundred and seventeen GDPs participated in the study.」「For occlusal lesions, nine (9.1%) newly-qualified dentists selected to intervene surgically on lesions confined to enamel, compared to 24 (29.8%) dentists who have been qualified for more than five years (p <0.05).」「A practitioner's restorative intervention threshold and their choice of treatment appears to be negatively affected by the number of years post-qualification, and positively influenced by attending a caries management course.」｜caveat: London NHS setting in the United Kingdom; a validated questionnaire measured treatment choices in hypothetical cases, not outcomes in real patients. The authors’ “appears to be” wording about years since qualification is associative. Do not rewrite this as “more experienced dentists are more likely to overtreat,” or as any judgement of an individual dentist.
• F28｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (vignette-based practice-based research network study, PMID 29138112)｜period: published 2018-02 (online 2017-11)｜geo: universal｜span: 「107 dentists viewed a series of 16 vignettes that represented all combinations of 4 clinical cues: color, luster, lesion roughness, and patient-level caries risk.」「86% of dentists had a consistent pattern of cue use that defined their decision strategy.」「However, there was considerable variability in the individual cues used by each dentist.」「The online vignette system suggests that clinical SOCL decision strategies are highly individualized and dentists do not use all cues available to them to make these decisions.」｜caveat: online vignette study measuring decision strategy rather than real treatment or outcomes; limited to suspicious occlusal caries lesions. Do not infer that any decision strategy is more correct or use it to rate an individual dentist.
• F29｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (narrative review, PMID 30920092; PubMed pubtype labels it Systematic Review)｜period: published 2019-12 (online 2019-03); on 2026-08-06, a title search for shared decision-making plus dentistry/oral health found no newer systematic review replacing this paper (it did find a 2026 theoretical analysis on the same topic, PMID 41992432, which is not a systematic review)｜geo: universal｜span: 「Limited number of published studies on the implementation of SDM in dental practice is available.」「Informed consent intertwines with the SDM process and begins with providing high quality information to patients and employing PDAs.」｜caveat: the authors call it a concise narrative review; it provides no number of included studies and no quality appraisal. This card cites only its statements that informed consent and shared decision-making intertwine and that research in the area is limited; it cites no effect of any specific decision aid.
• F30｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (concept-mapping review, PMID 32154607)｜period: published 2020-04 (online 2020-03)｜geo: universal｜span: 「Trust in dentist-patient relationships needs to be assessed in a multidisciplinary approach for interconnectedness among relevant concepts.」「Despite the centrality of trust in medical/dental contexts, empirical evidence is insufficient beyond normative suggestions from previous studies.」｜caveat: pragmatic review for concept mapping, not a systematic review and without meta-analysis. This card cites it precisely to mark limited evidence for the construct “trust”; do not reverse that into “trust is unimportant.”
• F31｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (mixed-method cross-sectional study, PMID 35430916)｜period: published 2023-07 (online 2022-04)｜geo: universal｜span: 「An 11-item Dental Trust Scale (DTS) questionnaire was administered to 150 White, Black, and Hispanic study participants.」「Overall, dental trust was significantly higher in participants who had a regular dentist (F = 8.74, P = 0.003).」「Qualitative analysis also showed that the 2 main trust-building tools used by dentists were communication and understanding the patient's lifestyle or social determinants of health.」｜caveat: cross-sectional design; 150 participants; specific United States groups; association, not causation. “People with a regular dentist had higher trust” does not mean “staying with one clinic makes oral health better”; the qualitative part interviewed only 7 dentists.
• F32｜confidence: verified (2026-08-06 efetch compared verbatim)｜basis: peer_reviewed (cross-sectional population survey, PMID 32285512)｜period: published 2020-08 (online 2020-04)｜geo: universal｜span: 「Response data were analysed from 4220 participants (response rate = 41.9%).」「This study found that favourable DPR variables, mainly greater satisfaction and less dental fear are positively associated with better OHRQoL.」「Further studies are warranted to investigate the causality and mediation/moderation of DPR variables on oral health outcomes.」｜caveat: cross-sectional random sample in South Australia, with a 41.9% response rate (non-response bias is possible). Results are associations and the authors explicitly say causality needs further study; oral-health-related quality of life is a self-reported scale, not a clinical indicator.
• F33 [pending verification]｜confidence: low｜basis: to be added (not live-tested in this round)｜geo: TW｜whether county/city health bureaus have public search pages for sanctions information about medical institutions, and their scope and update frequency, was not live-tested in this round; this card therefore does not list them as verification routes｜caveat: not live-tested does not mean absent. If a later live test finds an accessible entry and confirms that dental-institution data are actually in that source, add it only after the source’s three required elements are complete.
• F34｜confidence: n/a｜basis: editorial_framework｜geo: TW｜An editorial decision by this site; no literature is claimed to support it: this card is about choosing a clinic, but a reader may reach it during an emergency, so under the specification rule "the immediate action in an emergency may not be outsourced" a single routing instruction is kept here (seek care first, do not compare clinics; emergency department if breathing, swallowing or speech is affected, otherwise contact a dental clinic). The sentence contains no severity judgement, no figures and no time threshold; the full triage remains canonical in KM-DENTAL-33 / KM-DENTAL-30｜caveat: must not be marked pending verification, and must not be written as if sourced

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:

>

- 「有沒有跟健保署特約、有沒有加入某計畫」

- 「特約院所查詢」

Compliance note

This is health education information under Article 87 of Taiwan’s Medical Care Act [F14], not medical advertising. It recommends no particular institution, rates no institution or dentist’s clinical skill, provides no list or ranking, and gives no amount or price range. Dental care has risks and contraindications; each procedure may have limits on indications, postoperative discomfort, or complications. Actual treatment methods and results vary by person and require assessment by a dentist. The official search systems cited here provide administrative registration facts, not healthcare-quality certification; their results must not be used to judge clinical superiority or inferiority. Whether an institution’s advertising violates the law is determined by the competent health authority; this card makes no individual-case judgement. This card also gives no legal opinion or insurance reimbursement opinion; related matters depend on statutes and contractual policy terms.

Sources

• S1 Lamprecht R, Struppek J, Heydecke G, Reissmann DR. Patients' criteria for choosing a dentist: Comparison between a university-based setting and private dental practices. J Oral Rehabil. 2020 Aug;47(8):1023-1030. PMID 32428967. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428967 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• S2 Nitschke I, von Chlingensperg R, Schrock A, Hopfenmüller W, Jockusch J. What Counts for the Old and Oldest Old? An Analysis of Patient Criteria for Choosing a Dentist - Part I. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jul 7;19(14):8307. PMID 35886163. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35886163 (accessed 2026-08-06)
• S3 Nitschke I, Ulbrich T, Schrock A, Hopfenmüller W, Jockusch J. What Counts for the Old and Oldest Old? An Analysis of Patient Criteria for Choosing a Dentist - Part II. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jul 15;19(14):8621. PMID 35886473. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35886473 (accessed 2026-08-06)
• S4 Lin Y, Hong YA, Henson BS, Stevenson RD, Hong S, Lyu T, Liang C. Assessing Patient Experience and Healthcare Quality of Dental Care Using Patient Online Reviews in the United States: Mixed Methods Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jul 7;22(7):e18652. PMID 32673240. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32673240 (accessed 2026-08-06)
• S5 Grabner-Kräuter S, Waiguny MK. Insights into the impact of online physician reviews on patients' decision making: randomized experiment. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Apr 9;17(4):e93. PMID 25862516. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25862516 (accessed 2026-08-06)
• S6 Larsen M, Holde GE, Johnsen JK. Challenging encounters in clinical dentistry: a qualitative study investigating online reviews of patient satisfaction with Norwegian dentists. Acta Odontol Scand. 2022 Jul;80(5):328-337. PMID 34875189. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34875189 (accessed 2026-08-06)
• S7 Rostamzadeh M, Rahimi F. Aesthetic dentistry and ethics: a systematic review of marketing practices and overtreatment in cosmetic dental procedures. BMC Med Ethics. 2025 Jan 27;26(1):12. PMID 39871285. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39871285 (accessed 2026-08-06)
• S8 Chana P, Orlans MC, O'Toole S, Domejean S, Movahedi S, Banerjee A. Restorative intervention thresholds and treatment decisions of general dental practitioners in London. Br Dent J. 2019 Oct;227(8):727-732. PMID 31654011. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31654011 (accessed 2026-08-06)
• S9 Makhija SK, Robinson ME, Bader JD, et al.; National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group. Dentists' decision strategies for suspicious occlusal caries lesions in a National Dental PBRN study. J Dent. 2018 Feb;69:83-87. PMID 29138112. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29138112 (accessed 2026-08-06)
• S10 Asa'ad F. Shared decision-making (SDM) in dentistry: A concise narrative review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Dec;25(6):1088-1093. PMID 30920092. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30920092 (accessed 2026-08-06)
• S11 Song Y, Luzzi L, Brennan DS. Trust in dentist-patient relationships: mapping the relevant concepts. Eur J Oral Sci. 2020 Apr;128(2):110-119. PMID 32154607. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32154607 (accessed 2026-08-06)
• S12 Tiwari T, Maliq NN, Rai N, et al. Evaluating Trust in the Patient-Dentist Relationship: A Mixed-Method Study. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2023 Jul;8(3):287-298. PMID 35430916. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35430916 (accessed 2026-08-06)
• S13 Song Y, Luzzi L, Chrisopoulos S, Brennan D. Dentist-patient relationships and oral health impact in Australian adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2020 Aug;48(4):309-316. PMID 32285512. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32285512 (accessed 2026-08-06)
• S14 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 15 (National Laws and Regulations Database). law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=15 (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; page title “Medical Care Act §15—National Laws and Regulations Database”; statutory text matched verbatim)　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫療法§15-全國法規資料庫」]
• S15 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 18 (National Laws and Regulations Database). law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=18 (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; statutory text matched verbatim)
• S16 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 85 (National Laws and Regulations Database). law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=85 (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; three provisions matched verbatim)
• S17 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 86 (National Laws and Regulations Database). law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=86 (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; all seven items matched verbatim)
• S18 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 87 (National Laws and Regulations Database). law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=87 (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; two provisions matched verbatim)
• S19 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 21 (National Laws and Regulations Database). law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=21 (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; statutory text matched verbatim)
• S20 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 22 (National Laws and Regulations Database). law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=22 (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; two provisions matched verbatim)
• S21 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 81 (National Laws and Regulations Database). law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=81 (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; Paragraph 1 matched verbatim)
• S22 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 63 (National Laws and Regulations Database). law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=63 (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; Paragraph 1 matched verbatim)
• S23 Unused (number retained to avoid misalignment when source numbers are compared with existing cards).
• S24 Ministry of Health and Welfare, Practitioner Information System—Medical Institution Search. ma.mohw.gov.tw medical-institution search (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; page title “Ministry of Health and Welfare—Practitioner Information System—Medical Institution Search”; four drop-down lists read item by item and explanatory text matched verbatim; this site submitted no real name search)　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「衛生福利部-醫事查詢系統-醫事機構查詢」]
• S25 Ministry of Health and Welfare, Practitioner Information System—Practitioner Search. ma.mohw.gov.tw practitioner search (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; page title “Ministry of Health and Welfare—Practitioner Information System—Practitioner Search”; practitioner-type and county/city-of-practice lists read item by item; this site submitted no real name search)　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「衛生福利部-醫事查詢系統-醫事人員查詢」]
• S26 Ministry of Health and Welfare, Practitioner Information System—Practitioner Disciplinary Decision Search Area. ma.mohw.gov.tw disciplinary-decision search (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; page title “Ministry of Health and Welfare—Practitioner Discipline Platform Area”; practitioner-type options and explanatory text matched verbatim; this site submitted no search)　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「衛生福利部-醫事查詢系統-醫事人員懲戒平台專區」]
• S27 Ministry of Health and Welfare National Health Insurance Administration, NHI-contracted healthcare institution search. info.nhi.gov.tw INAE1000S01 (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; menus read item by item and one New Taipei City / New Taipei City Shulin District / dentistry search submitted; result-page title and condition row compared verbatim; this site does not record or republish the result-list content or count; same anchor used by KM-DENTAL-30)
• S28 Regulations Governing Dental Specialist Divisions and Examination (National Laws and Regulations Database, amended 2023-05-02). law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020200 (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; page title “Regulations Governing Dental Specialist Divisions and Examination—National Laws and Regulations Database”; Articles 6, 13, and 14 matched verbatim)　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「牙醫專科醫師分科及甄審辦法-全國法規資料庫」]
• S29 New Taipei City Government, “New Taipei City Self-pay Dental Fee Schedule.” ntpc.gov.tw New Taipei City Self-pay Dental Fee Schedule (live-loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; page title, breadcrumb, issuance/revision history, and note section read verbatim; this card cites no amount from the schedule)　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「新北市牙醫診療自費收費標準表」]
• S30 Unused (number retained).
• S31 Unused (number retained).
• S32 Internal data: appendix for item 49 in `analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` (full reconciliation of GSC data for 14 clinic assets, data window from 2025-03; 3 query terms, one site, reconcilable record by record). Not a medical-fact basis; topic-selection evidence only and not output at publication.
• S33 Editorial framework (no external source): the card’s three-step verification framework; the separation of first-visit observation and review-reading; the policy of explaining fee reading without amounts; and the red lines against listing clinics, ranking, or rating clinical skill. See F2 and F3.

Internal citation chain

• Urgent care first: What should I do if a tooth suddenly falls out? (KM-DENTAL-30, draft) and What should I do for toothache? What does cavity pain feel like? (KM-DENTAL-33, draft). The canonical boundary of the two cards: what to do in an emergency now and when to seek immediate care belong to those cards; this card handles only self-verification and questions in non-urgent situations and provides no symptom triage or red-flag criteria. This card and KM-DENTAL-30 share the same NHI-contracted-provider institutional anchor (F9); the other card cites the dental emergency pilot programme in its “programmes joined” field.
• Return-frequency canonical: How often should I have scaling? How much does it cost? (KM-DENTAL-43, draft). Evidence on whether to keep one dentist and how often to return is organised in that card; this card does not rewrite interval advice.
• Same family for reading fees: How much does one implant really cost? (KM-DENTAL-09, draft), How much does one crown cost? (KM-DENTAL-11, draft), and How much does periodontal treatment cost? Does it hurt, and how long does it take? (KM-DENTAL-48, draft). Those three cards show the fee components and variables for their respective treatments. This card only adds that fee standards are approved by county/city authorities and where to find New Taipei City’s notice (F15/F19); it does not repeat the breakdown.
• Things to consider before a decision: Will I regret an implant? Are the painful experiences online real? (KM-DENTAL-07, draft) and Must a missing tooth be replaced with an implant? What if I cannot afford it? (KM-DENTAL-35, draft). “What options exist for the same problem and what are their trade-offs?” is covered there and can be used with this card’s instruction to ask for the basis of the decision.

Publication-gate note: this card is a draft. It must not be marked published until F33 (public pages for county/city health-bureau sanction information) is verified; it may not enter km_entries until the four languages (zh-Hans/en/ja) are produced. It contains no clinical red-flag criteria or symptom grading and is an FAQ card; however, it has a high density of solicitation-compliance interpretation, so OP should decide whether to add a cross-architecture compliance review.