做牙橋會後悔嗎？牙橋是什麼、最多幾顆？｜證據鏈

做牙橋會後悔嗎？牙橋是什麼、最多幾顆？｜證據鏈

F-Units（事實單元帳）

每條標明來源、confidence、basis、期間、geo 與 caveat。basis 階梯：law ＞ official_statement ＞ clinical_guideline ＞ peer_reviewed ＞ textbook。

• F1｜confidence: verified｜basis: internal_dataset（S28，非醫學宣稱）｜period: 2025-03 至 2026-08 GSC 保留窗｜geo: TW｜span: backlog #45「牙橋後悔」（67,113）「牙橋是什麼」（13,513）「牙橋最多幾顆」（5,209）「拆牙橋過程」（4,693）4 詞項合計曝光 90,528，跨 3 站｜caveat: 曝光為資產級數字、非去重流量；發布轉檔時本條整條不輸出（2026-08-05 內部數據不進可見層裁定）。
• F2｜confidence: n/a｜basis: 結構性整理（編輯框架，S29，非事實宣稱）｜geo: universal｜下列皆為本站編輯定義的說明結構，非外部事實：①「三種牙橋分流」的名詞對照 ②「不引用也不否定論壇貼文、改對照文獻類別」的處理原則 ③四類後悔點的分類與排序 ④本卡與黏著式牙橋卡（KM-DENTAL-22）、缺牙選項卡（KM-DENTAL-35）、固定假牙費用卡（KM-DENTAL-03）的 canonical 邊界 ⑤「報價請以書面明細與縣市核定標準對照」之就醫溝通建議 ⑥禁寫「挑對醫師就不會後悔」類結果承諾之編輯規則。
• F3｜confidence: n/a｜basis: 證據缺口聲明（editorial，非待驗）｜geo: universal｜本次檢索未取得可引用證據，故本卡不寫：①任何金額、區間或行情 ②牙橋可使用年限的個人預測 ③台灣本土的牙橋存活或併發症統計 ④牙橋顆數的上限數字 ⑤傳統切開式拆除對支台齒影響的系統性回顧結論（本次 PubMed 檢索以 crown removal／sectioning／retrievability 等組合查詢，回傳 0 筆符合者）⑥保固條款的內容與效力（屬契約約定，非醫學問題，本站不提供法律見解）。
• F4｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，PMID 41650383）｜period: 檢索 2014-01 至 2024-12，2026-02-06 線上先行刊出＝本卡納入文獻中檢索日期較新者｜geo: universal｜span: 「In total, 41 studies, including 600 metal-ceramic and 1,532 all-ceramic FDPs, met the inclusion criteria.」「The 5-year survival rates were 92.9% for veneered densely sintered zirconia, 91.3% for metal-ceramic, 88.4% for glass-infiltrated alumina, 87.9% for monolithic densely sintered zirconia, and 82.5% for lithium disilicate-reinforced glass-ceramic FDPs.」「Lithium disilicate FDPs showed significantly lower survival than metal-ceramic restorations, while differences among other materials were not statistically significant. Overall, 71.0% of restorations remained complicationfree after 5 years. All-ceramic FDPs had higher rates of marginal caries and loss of retention than metalceramic FDPs. Framework fractures were more prevalent in all-ceramic restorations, particularly in lithium disilicate-reinforced glass-ceramic and glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (> 10% over 5 years). Ceramic chipping was common but least frequent in monolithic zirconia FDPs.」｜caveat: 線上先行刊出（online ahead of print），尚未有正式卷期頁碼；納入 17 篇來自既有系統性回顧以涵蓋較早期間；71.0% 之分母為修復體，與 F6 之 15.7%（分母為病人）不可相減。版本時效查核（2026-08-06）：以 tooth-supported FDP＋survival＋systematic review 檢索 2018–2026 刊期，本篇為刊期最晚（2026-02）且直接對應之多單位牙支撐固定假牙回顧。
• F5｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，PMID 15533126）｜period: 檢索 1966 至 2004-03，2004 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Nineteen studies from an initial yield of 3658 titles were finally selected」「The 10-year probability of survival for fixed partial dentures was 89.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 81-93.8%) while the probability of success was 71.1% (95% CI: 47.7-85.2%).」「The 10-year risk for caries and periodontitis leading to FPD loss was 2.6% and 0.7%, respectively. The 10-year risk for loss of retention was 6.4%, for abutment fracture 2.1% and for material fractures 3.2%.」「Survival of the FPDs was analyzed according to in situ and intact failure risks.」｜caveat: 摘要未逐字定義「success」之判準（僅載明存活依 in situ 與 intact 兩種失敗風險分析），故本卡不把 71.1% 讀成「完全無併發症」——該定義出自同系列的懸臂式回顧（F7），屬不同研究，禁跨篇借用；年代較早，5 年期數據已由 F4（2026）更新；但 F4 只報 5 年，10 年估計目前仍以本篇與 F6 為可引用來源（2026-08-06 以 10-year survival tooth-supported FDP systematic review 檢索，回傳 3 筆，無更新之 10 年統合估計）。納入研究以世代研究為主，異質性高。
• F6｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，PMID 17594374）｜period: 平均追蹤 ≥5 年之研究，2007 刊出（同錨：本站 #22 卡 F11）｜geo: universal｜span: 「an estimated 5-year survival of conventional tooth-supported FDPs of 93.8%」「after 10 years of function the estimated survival decreased to 89.2% for conventional FDPs」「Despite high survival rates, 38.7% the patients with implant-supported FDPs had some complications after the 5-year observation period. This is compared with 15.7% for conventional FDPs and 20.6% for cantilever FDPs, respectively.」「For conventional tooth-supported FDPs, the most frequent complications were biological complications like caries and loss of pulp vitality.」｜caveat: 15.7% 之分母為病人（原句對照的是植體支撐固定假牙病人的 38.7%），非修復體，與 F4 之 71.0% 不同口徑；本篇之 conventional tooth-supported FDP 指修磨鄰牙做全冠支台的傳統固定牙橋，與黏著式牙橋（KM-DENTAL-22）非同一術式，兩組數字禁互相套用。
• F7｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，PMID 15533127）｜period: 平均追蹤 ≥5 年之研究，2004 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Meta-analysis of these studies resulted in an estimated survival rate of cantilever FPDs of 81.8% (95 percent confidence interval (95% CI): 78.2-84.9%) and success rate (free of all complications) of 63% (95% CI: 54.7-70.2%) after 10 years.」「The most common biological complication was loss of pulp vitality (32.6%) followed by caries at abutment teeth (9.1%).」｜caveat: 族群限定為懸臂式（單端支撐）固定假牙，非兩端支台的傳統牙橋；本卡正文未引用其 32.6% 之數值於傳統牙橋段落，僅列於事實帳以標示口徑差異，避免跨設計外推。
• F8｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review，PMID 42008751）｜period: 檢索 2012–2023 文獻，2026 刊出（同錨：本站 #37 卡 F7）｜geo: universal｜span: 「Crown preparation leads to irreversible dental tissue loss, which affects long-term restoration success.」｜caveat: 該回顧主題為垂直式與水平式預備技術之齒質保存比較；本卡僅取其對「牙冠預備造成不可逆齒質喪失」之陳述，未引用任何預備技術之優劣結論。
• F9｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed（體外重量分析研究，非臨床，PMID 12186346）｜period: 2002 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Four Typodont resin teeth representing maxillary and mandibular premolars and molars were prepared in various abutment designs」「Preparations A3 and F3 were assigned as abutments for metal-supported restorations, whereas all other preparations were used for all-ceramic restorations.」「When the mean structure removal of all teeth tested was compared, the adhesive and inlay abutments were the least invasive preparation designs, ranging from approximately 5.5% (A2) to 27.2% (13) tooth structure removal. Complete crowns required the most invasive preparations, ranging from 67.5% (F1) to 75.6% (F3) tooth structure removal.」｜caveat: 模型樹脂牙的體外重量分析，不是病人口內量測，每組 10 顆；數值為齒質移除比例，非療效或預後指標；正文已明寫此限制。
• F10｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed（體外重量分析研究，非臨床，PMID 12070513）｜period: 2002 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Typodont resin teeth representing the maxillary left central incisor, maxillary left canine, and mandibular left central incisor were prepared with the following designs」「Ceramic veneers and resin-bonded prosthesis retainers were the least invasive preparation designs, removing approximately 3% to 30% of the coronal tooth structure by weight. Approximately 63% to 72% of the coronal tooth structure was removed when teeth were prepared for all-ceramic and metal-ceramic crowns.」｜caveat: 同 F9，屬體外模型量測；本篇對象為前牙，測的是牙冠部（coronal）齒質重量比例。
• F11｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，觀察性研究，PMID 34516686）｜period: 檢索至 2021-01，2022 刊出（同錨：本站 #11、#37 卡）｜geo: universal｜span: 「Electronic searches provided 10,075 records among which 20 studies were selected for systematic review and 7 studies were selected for meta-analysis.」「The meta-analysis revealed clinical and radiographic success rate ranging between 92% to 98% at different follow up periods ranging between 5 years and 20 years.」｜caveat: 僅納入觀察性研究、異質性高；成功率之定義為牙髓與根尖狀態，非牙橋本身存活；族群為固定假牙之活髓支台齒（含單冠與牙橋）。
• F12｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review，PMID 37455556）｜period: 檢索至 2022-10，2024 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「26 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis of the present systematic review.」「For FDPs, the 5-year survival rate was significantly higher for FDPs on vital abutments (84.9%; 95% CI [75.9, 93.9%]) compared to FDPs retained by non-vital abutment/s (81.3%; 95% CI [80.3, 82.2%], P = 0.049) irrespective to presence, type of post, and FDPs material.」「The results are limited by the limited number of studies and the presence of uncontrolled confounding clinical variables.」｜caveat: 觀察性資料，作者自陳受研究數量有限與未控制之干擾因素所限；為關聯非因果，正文已明寫；本卡未引用其單冠分項數據（屬 KM-DENTAL-11 範圍）。
• F13｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（narrative review，PMID 28429481）｜period: 2017 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「The design of the prosthesis, the number and quality of the abutment teeth, the preparation and the pontic, the occlusion and the material need to be considered when planning prosthodontic treatment.」「Pontic design and cleansibility also contribute to the response of the gingival tissues as well as to the clinical and esthetic outcome. Even an optimal pontic design will not prevent inflammation of the mucosa adjacent to the pontic if pontic hygiene is not maintained by removal of plaque.」「Case selection and the patients' ability to carry out adequate oral hygiene are therefore essential for longevity of the prosthesis, and regular reviews provide an opportunity for early detection and treatment of failures.」｜caveat: 敘述性回顧（narrative review），非統合分析、未提供合併估計值；本卡僅取其規劃因素清單與橋體清潔之陳述，未引用任何量化結論。
• F14｜confidence: high｜basis: clinical_guideline（2017 World Workshop 委託之敘述性回顧，PMID 29926939）｜period: 2018 刊出（同錨：本站 #11、#23、#37 卡）｜geo: universal｜span: 「Placement of restoration margins within the junctional epithelium and supracrestal connective tissue attachment can be associated with gingival inflammation and, potentially, recession.」「Restoration margins located within the gingival sulcus do not cause gingivitis if patients are compliant with self-performed plaque control and periodic maintenance.」｜caveat: 敘述性回顧，非統合分析。
• F15｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，PMID 17594371）｜period: 檢索 1966 至 2006-09，2007 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「In subjects suffering from generalized severe periodontitis, only a few teeth may be treated and used as abutments for fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).」「The search provided 860 titles of which six publications were included. A total of 579 FDPs were incorporated and followed up to 25 years.」「Meta-analysis yielded an estimated FDP survival rate of 96.4% [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 94.6-97.6%] after five and of 92.9% (95% CI: 89.5-95.3%) after 10 years, respectively. After 10 years, the estimated rate of abutment teeth without endodontic complications amounted to 93% (95% CI: 62.6-98.9%). The 10-year estimated rate of caries-free abutment teeth was 98.1% (95% CI: 88.2-99.7%).」｜caveat: PubMed 註記本篇有勘誤（Erratum in Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Mar;19(3):326-8），勘誤內容本次未能取回，引用時應併同查核；僅納入 6 篇、信賴區間極寬（如根管併發症 62.6 至 98.9）；族群為牙周支持嚴重減少但健康且接受維護的支台齒，不可外推至未治療之活動性牙周炎。版本時效查核（2026-08-06）：以 reduced periodontal support＋FDP＋systematic review 檢索 2015–2026 刊期，回傳 0 筆，未見更新版。
• F16｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed（回溯臨床研究，PMID 9183035）｜period: 1997 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「The relationship between bridge failure and the periodontal ligament area of their abutments was studied in 156 dental bridges constructed for 132 patients.」「Of the bridges constructed at the College of Dentistry, King Saud University, 26.9% did not meet the published criteria of Ante's Law while 50.0% of those made in general dental practice did not meet the same criteria.」「However, radiographic evaluation of abutment teeth in 56 failed bridges revealed that there were only two cases with evidence of overloading the abutments.」｜caveat: 單一機構、年代久遠、非系統性回顧；摘要未載明「56 座失敗牙橋」與前述 156 座之間的關係（是否為同一批的子集），本卡不推定；本卡僅用於說明兩件事——該法則被檢驗時量的是支台齒牙周韌帶面積，以及不符合該法則者未必以過度負荷的形式失敗——未引為療效或設計建議。
• F17｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed（多中心病歷回溯研究，PMID 7616341）｜period: 1995 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「The survival rate of 1674 bridges and the influence of several factors on the lifetime of bridges were analysed, based on data from patient records that belonged to a random sample of 40 Dutch general practices.」「It appears that the 12 year survival rate of the bridges is 87%.」「There is a significant difference in the survival rate between the bridges that meet and do not meet Ante's law, and only a weak significant difference between the bridges with vital vs. non-vital abutment teeth.」「Gender and age of the patient, length of the bridge, presence of a post and core build-up, or the construction of the bridge (conventional fixed vs. cantilever pontic) appear to have no influence on the survival rate of the bridges in this sample.」｜caveat: 病歷回溯、年代久遠、單一國家開業族群；「長度無影響」為該樣本內之發現，不可讀成普遍結論；本篇與 F18 對長跨距的觀察方向不同，本卡並列不擇一。
• F18｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed（回溯臨床分析，PMID 25262674）｜period: 2015 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「This study is based on the data of 36 patients who received 41 LSFDPs.」「During the observation period, 22.0% (n = 9) of the LSFDPs ceased to function. The calculated outcome probability after 3 years was 88.3%, and 57.4% after 5 years.」「The only significant difference in the mean survival time could be found in LSFDPs with two abutment teeth in comparison with LSFDPs with three and more abutment teeth.」「Although all of the patients were invited to an oral health and maintenance program regularly, only 13.8% attended.」「the patient's compliance is a crucial factor in the successful implementation of a LSFDP, whereas other factors are of minor importance」｜caveat: 樣本僅 36 位病人、41 座；摘要未載明兩顆與三顆以上支台齒何者較佳，本卡不推測方向；維護出席率極低（13.8%）為該族群特性，讀數字時須連同此條件一起看。
• F19｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed（一頁評論文，PubMed 無摘要，PMID 22942148）｜period: 2012 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Ante's law is not evidence based.」（＝本篇標題逐字；PubMed 無摘要，內文未能取回）｜caveat: 僅引用標題所表達的立場，未引用其內文論證；本條不作為任何臨床數值或建議之依據，僅用於記錄該法則的證據基礎在文獻中被公開質疑。
• F20｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed（回溯世代研究，PMID 40960697）｜period: 平均觀察 4.27 年，2025-09-17 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「434 FDPs placed in 326 patients were selected from a prospective clinical long-term study. 213 FDPs were solely implant-supported, 154 FDPs tooth-implant supported, and 67 FDPs were cantilever FDPs. The most FDPs had 3-units (n = 315), 95 FDPs had 4-units, and 24 FDPs had more than 4 units.」「The mean observation period was 4.27 years.」「Log-rank tests revealed no significant differences between groups for all variables (support, number of units, and loading factor (p ≥ .339).」｜caveat: 族群限定為植體支撐與牙—植體混合支撐固定假牙，不含純牙支撐牙橋，結論禁直接套用於傳統牙橋，正文已明寫；單一中心回溯、平均觀察僅 4.27 年，未達顯著不等於無差異。
• F21｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed（回溯追蹤研究，PMID 21716968）｜period: 平均追蹤 17.7 年，2011 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Fifty-seven patients with 82 FPDs from an original group of 104 patients with 128 FPDs attended an approximate clinical 18-year follow-up examination. The mean follow-up period was 17.7 years (range: 17.1 to 21.3 years).」「Nine FPDs were lost because of extraction of an abutment tooth, and 1 FPD was removed for esthetic reasons.」「The survival rate of the FPDs was 78%, and the established success rate was 71%.」「The most common clinical findings were gingival bleeding on probing and appearance of supragingival crown margins.」｜caveat: 單一中心、修復體由牙醫學生製作；僅約半數原始族群回診受檢，存在選擇性追蹤偏誤，正文已明寫；非系統性回顧，證據等級低於 F4、F5、F6。
• F22｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，PMID 39369882）｜period: 檢索至 2024-06，2024-12 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Thirty-one articles were identified, of which 22 were included for systematic review and 7 RCTs were included for meta-analysis.」「In the pooled analysis, 180 bilaminar zirconia (ZC) FDPs and 206 MC FDPs were included.」「ZC FDPs were significantly associated with more failures (RR=3.64, p = 0.009) and more Ceramic Chipping (RR=2.92, p < 0.0001) when compared to MC FDPs.」「There is lack of long term (>10 years follow-up) evidence of the clinical performance of ZC FDPs and monolithic zirconia FDPs.」｜caveat: 統合分析僅納入 7 篇隨機對照試驗、合計 180 座氧化鋯與 206 座金屬燒瓷固定假牙；本篇之氧化鋯組主要為雙層（外飾式），與 F4 對外飾式氧化鋯的估計方向不一致，本卡並列不擇一；相對風險為兩材質之比較，非絕對發生率。
• F23｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed（回溯臨床分析，PMID 38096248）｜period: 2023-12-14 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「A retrospective analysis was conducted, involving 29 clinical cases with a total of 52 abutments requiring the removal of various ceramic restorations.」「Out of the 52 abutments, 50 were successfully retrieved without causing any damage (>95%) using either an Er,Cr:YSGG laser (N = 6) or an Er:YAG laser (N = 46).」「The restorations consisted of 13 lithium disilicate and 39 zirconia units, including six veneers, 38 single crowns, and three fixed partial dentures (FPDs).」「The retrieval time varied depending on the restoration type, material thickness, cement type, retention form/fitting of the abutment and restoration, ranging from 2.25 ±0.61 minutes for veneers, 6.89 ±8.07 minutes for crowns, to 25 ±10 minutes per abutment for FPDs.」「Laser-assisted debonding allows for recementation of the restorations during the same appointment」｜caveat: 29 例回溯、其中固定牙橋僅 3 座，無對照組、非隨機分派；時間數值（貼片 2.25±0.61、單冠 6.89±8.07、固定假牙每支台 25±10 分鐘）為該樣本之描述統計，單冠組標準差大於平均值代表個案差異極大；本卡不推薦任何特定器械或術式，亦未引用其「安全有效」之結論用語作為療效宣稱。
• F24｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載全國法規資料庫，條文逐字對得上）｜basis: law（S21）｜period: 現行條文｜geo: TW｜span: 《全民健康保險法》第 51 條第 11 款「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: 條文引述，非法律意見；個別給付以健保署現行公告為準，本卡不作給付判定。
• F25｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，條文逐字對得上）｜basis: law（S22）｜period: 現行條文｜geo: TW｜span: 《醫療法》第 21 條「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: 條文引述，非法律意見。
• F26｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，條文逐字對得上）｜basis: law（S23）｜period: 現行條文｜geo: TW｜span: 《醫療法》第 22 條「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: 條文引述，非法律意見；本卡不列任何金額。
• F27｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，條文逐字對得上）｜basis: law（S24）｜period: 現行條文｜geo: TW｜span: 《醫療法》第 81 條「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: 條文引述，非法律意見。
• F28｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，條文逐字對得上）｜basis: law（S25）｜period: 現行條文｜geo: TW｜span: 《醫療法》第 87 條「廣告內容暗示或影射醫療業務者，視為醫療廣告。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: 本卡之衛教定位依此條；條文引述，非法律意見。
• F29｜confidence: verified（2026-08-05 OP 以 ego-browser 親驗兩軌查詢類別逐項讀取；本卡沿用同錨，未重驗）｜basis: official_statement（S26）｜period: 2026-08-05 實測現況｜geo: TW｜span: 健保署醫材比價網兩軌查詢類別皆不含牙科，頁面全文無「牙」字（紀錄見 km-compliance/VERIFIED-FACTS.md）｜caveat: 屬他人實測紀錄之沿用，本卡未重新量測；用途僅為排除錯誤的查證管道，不作任何費用陳述。
• F30｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 本卡以 ego-browser 實載，頁面標題與檔案清單逐字讀取，頁面標示資料更新 115-07-15）｜basis: official_statement（S27）｜period: 1090117 核定版｜geo: TW｜span: 臺北市政府衛生局收費標準頁「臺北市醫療機構牙科收費標準表」(1090117核定)，相關檔案「臺北市醫療機構牙科收費標準表(奉核版-1090117)」｜caveat: 單一縣市例證，其他縣市各自公告；資料集不等於個別院所實際收費，仍須以院所書面明細為準；本卡不引用其中任何金額。

怎麼找到提供這項服務的院所

本站不列出任何院所名單，也不推薦、不評比、不比較任何醫療機構。

要找提供這項服務的診所，請用下列法定查詢管道自己查——它們的資料由主管機關維護，比任何名單都新：

>

- 衛生福利部「醫事機構查詢」：可依縣市、鄉鎮與科別（牙科）查出已完成開業登記的醫事機構，

結果會顯示機構名稱、地址與登記科別。這是確認「這家有沒有合法登記」的第一站。

- 中央健康保險署「特約醫事機構查詢」：可查該院所是不是健保特約。

關係到哪些項目走健保、哪些自費，直接影響你會拿到什麼樣的收費說明。

>

兩個系統都在各自主管機關的官方網站上，以「醫事機構查詢」「特約院所查詢」為關鍵字即可找到。

本站不轉貼網址，因為網址會變動，請以主管機關當下公告的入口為準。

>

急症不要花時間查名單：影響到呼吸、吞嚥、說話，或腫脹正在擴散時，直接就近掛急診。

合規註記

本文為衛生教育資訊（醫療法 87 條）[F28]，非醫療廣告，不推薦特定院所，且不提供任何金額或價格區間。固定牙橋治療涉及支台齒不可逆的齒質修磨，具醫療風險與禁忌症，可能出現支台齒蛀牙、牙髓失去活性、失去固位、崩瓷、底冠或支台齒斷裂、橋體周圍黏膜發炎與牙齦退縮等情形；實際治療方式與效果因人而異，須由牙醫師評估。本卡整理的判斷因素供就醫溝通使用，不能取代臨床診斷；本文亦不對任何院所的處置作評價，不提供保險理賠或契約條款之法律見解，相關問題依保單與契約條款而定。

來源清單

• S1 Romandini P, Pjetursson BE, Pitta J, Balet A, Ikumi R, Sailer I. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Survival, the Failure and the Complication Rates of Metal-Ceramic, Veneered and Monolithic All-Ceramic Tooth-Supported Multiple-Unit Fixed Dental Prostheses (FDPs). Int J Prosthodont. 2026 Feb 6 (online ahead of print). PMID 41650383. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41650383（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S2 Tan K, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, Chan ES. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(6):654-66. PMID 15533126. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15533126（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S3 Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18 Suppl 3:97-113. PMID 17594374. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17594374（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；同錨 KM-DENTAL-22）
• S4 Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Brägger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years（懸臂式）. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(6):667-76. PMID 15533127. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15533127（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S5 Florescu ML, Arrien-Barrenetxea G, Fiorillo L, et al. Preservation of Dental Structure in Prosthetic Restorations: Vertical and Horizontal Preparation Techniques. Systematic Review. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2026;12(2):e70360. PMID 42008751. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42008751（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；同錨 KM-DENTAL-37）
• S6 Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for posterior teeth. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2002;22(3):241-9. PMID 12186346. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12186346（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S7 Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(5):503-9. PMID 12070513. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12070513（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S8 Kohli S, Bhatia S, Al-Haddad A, Pulikkotil SJ, Jamayet NB. Pulpal and Periapical Status of the Vital Teeth Used as Abutment for Fixed Prosthesis-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Prosthodont. 2022;31(2):102-114. PMID 34516686. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34516686（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；同錨 KM-DENTAL-11、KM-DENTAL-37）
• S9 Hawthan M, Larsson C, Chrcanovic BR. Survival of fixed prosthetic restorations on vital and nonvital teeth: A systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2024;33(2):110-122. PMID 37455556. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37455556（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S10 Abduo J, Lyons KM. Interdisciplinary interface between fixed prosthodontics and periodontics. Periodontol 2000. 2017;74(1):40-62. PMID 28429481. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28429481（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S11 Ercoli C, Caton JG. Dental prostheses and tooth-related factors. J Periodontol. 2018;89 Suppl 1:S223-S236. PMID 29926939. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29926939（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；同錨 KM-DENTAL-11、23、37）
• S12 Lulic M, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M, Salvi GE. Ante's (1926) law revisited: a systematic review on survival rates and complications of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) on severely reduced periodontal tissue support. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18 Suppl 3:63-72. PMID 17594371. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17594371（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；PubMed 註記 Erratum in Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(3):326-8，勘誤內容未能取回）
• S13 Fayyad MA, Al-Rafee MA. Failure of dental bridges. IV. Effect of supporting periodontal ligament. J Oral Rehabil. 1997;24(5):401-3. PMID 9183035. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9183035（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S14 Leempoel PJ, Käyser AF, Van Rossum GM, De Haan AF. The survival rate of bridges. A study of 1674 bridges in 40 Dutch general practices. J Oral Rehabil. 1995;22(5):327-30. PMID 7616341. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7616341（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S15 Rehmann P, Podhorsky A, Schaaf D, Rudel K, Wöstmann B. Long-span fixed dental prostheses not meeting Ante's law: a retrospective analysis. Quintessence Int. 2015;46(1):51-7. PMID 25262674. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25262674（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S16 Balevi B. Ante's law is not evidence based. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012;143(9):1011-2. PMID 22942148. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22942148（取用 2026-08-06，PubMed 無摘要，僅標題逐字可取回；本卡未引用其內文）
• S17 Waldecker M, Rammelsberg P. Prognosis of multi-unit implant supported and combined tooth-implant supported fixed dental prostheses: a retrospective cohort study with a mean observation period of 4.27 years. Clin Oral Investig. 2025;29(10):463. PMID 40960697. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40960697（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S18 Napankangas R, Raustia A. An 18-year retrospective analysis of treatment outcomes with metal-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2011;24(4):314-9. PMID 21716968. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21716968（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S19 Zhang X, Yin L, Burrow MF, et al. Clinical performance of zirconia-based tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2024;151:105382. PMID 39369882. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39369882（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S20 Deeb JG, Grzech-Lesniak K, Bencharit S. Evaluation of the effectiveness and practicality of erbium lasers for ceramic restoration removal: A retrospective clinical analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(12):e0295957. PMID 38096248. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38096248（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S21 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（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，第 11 款逐字對得上）
• S22 醫療法 第 21 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=21（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，條文逐字對得上）
• S23 醫療法 第 22 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=22（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，條文逐字對得上）
• S24 醫療法 第 81 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=81（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，條文逐字對得上）
• S25 醫療法 第 87 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=87（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，兩項逐字對得上）
• S26 衛生福利部中央健康保險署醫材比價網兩查詢軌之品項分類（跨卡已驗事實，同錨）。info.nhi.gov.tw INAE2000/INAE2010S01（2026-08-05 由 KM-DENTAL-03 卡以 ego-browser 實測並經 OP 複驗，紀錄見 km-compliance/VERIFIED-FACTS.md；本卡未重複實測）
• S27 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（2026-08-06 本卡以 ego-browser 實載，頁面標題與相關檔案名稱逐字對得上，頁面標示資料更新 115-07-15）
• S28 內部資料：`analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` 第 45 題附錄（14 診所站 GSC 全量，資料窗 2025-03～2026-08），4 詞項跨 3 站，逐筆可對帳。非醫學事實 basis，僅為選題依據，發布時不進可見層。
• S29 編輯框架（無外部來源）：本卡的三種牙橋分流、四類後悔點分類、與同族卡的 canonical 邊界、論壇貼文處理原則、禁寫結果承諾之編輯規則，見 F2、F3。

內部引用鏈

• 同族 canonical 卡（術式）：黏著式（馬里蘭）牙橋是什麼？適合誰？（KM-DENTAL-22，草稿）。兩卡的 canonical 邊界：歸該卡的是——黏著式牙橋的單翼與雙翼設計比較、其存活與脫落率、適應條件與不利條件、名稱由來；歸本卡的是——傳統固定牙橋的不可逆修磨代價、支台齒併發症、橋體清潔、跨距與支台齒數的證據現況、拆除。兩卡共用 PMID 17594374 這一條文獻錨（本卡 F6＝該卡 F11），英文 span 逐字一致；該篇的 conventional tooth-supported FDP 與 resin-bonded bridge 是兩種不同術式，兩組數字禁互相套用。
• 同族 canonical 卡（選項比較）：缺牙一定要植牙嗎？沒錢補怎麼辦？（KM-DENTAL-35，草稿）。如果你還在決定「要不要補、補哪一種」，請從該卡開始：不補、活動假牙、牙橋、植牙四條路的條件與代價比較是該卡的 canonical 內容，本卡不重寫；本卡假設你已經被建議做傳統固定牙橋。
• 費用 canonical 卡：做一顆固定假牙要多少錢？（KM-DENTAL-03，草稿）。報價怎麼拆項、怎麼逐條對帳、查證管道在哪，收在該卡；本卡只講制度定位（自費側、縣市核定、收據），一個金額都不寫。
• 同型口碑卡：植牙會後悔嗎？網友的慘痛經驗是真的嗎？（KM-DENTAL-07，草稿）與全瓷冠會後悔嗎？缺點有哪些？（KM-DENTAL-37，草稿）。三卡採同一套處理原則（不引用也不否定貼文、改對照文獻類別），對象不同：分別處理植體、單顆全瓷冠與傳統固定牙橋。
• 上游決策卡：臼齒拔掉可以不補嗎？會怎樣？（KM-DENTAL-34，草稿）。若你的問題其實是「這顆到底要不要補」，判準在該卡；本卡承接的是已經決定要補、且被建議做牙橋之後的那一段。