The Dental-Implant Process: From Assessment to Crown Placement, What Stages Are There?｜證據鏈

Facts (fact-unit account)

Each entry identifies confidence, basis, period, geo, verbatim span, and caveat. The basis hierarchy is: law > official_statement > clinical_guideline > peer_reviewed > textbook. A withdrawn publication is marked withdrawn_publication/not_evidence and is not clinical evidence.

• F1｜confidence: high｜basis: internal_dataset (not a medical basis)｜period: GSC retention window (from 2025-03)｜geo: TW｜source S27｜This topic's query family has 6 terms across 5 sites, with item-by-item reconciliation available. Topic-selection figures are retained in the draft frontmatter and internal files and are not placed in the visible layer on publication (decision of 2026-08-05).
• F2｜no external source｜basis: editorial_framework (structural organization, not a factual claim; must not be labelled pending verification)｜period: 2026-08-06｜geo: universal｜source S28｜The nine-stage timeline, eight-question checklist, and division-of-work statement in “What this article covers” are a communication structure prepared by this site from F3 through F28 literature and statutes. They are not an official classification or a clinical guideline.
• F3｜confidence: verified (reachable in ego-browser test on 2026-08-06; statutory text matched word for word)｜basis: law (Article 63 of Taiwan's Medical Care Act)｜period: current text｜geo: TW｜source S22｜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: statutory quotation, not an individual legal opinion; shared anchor with KM-DENTAL-09. Official English translation: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0020021
• F4｜confidence: verified (tested 2026-08-06; statutory text matched word for word)｜basis: law (Article 81 of Taiwan's Medical Care Act)｜period: current text｜geo: TW｜source S23｜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. This article uses it to explain that medication is a prescribing judgment for the physician and should be explained by the physician; it gives no medication advice. Official English translation: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0020021
• F5｜confidence: verified (tested 2026-08-06; statutory text matched word for word)｜basis: law (Article 87, paragraph 2, of Taiwan's Medical Care Act)｜period: current text｜geo: TW｜source S24｜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: basis for this article's compliance positioning. Official English translation: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0020021
• F6｜confidence: verified (tested 2026-08-06; statutory text matched word for word)｜basis: law (Article 21 of Taiwan's Medical Care Act)｜period: current text｜geo: TW｜source S25｜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 statute itself contains no monetary amount; this article mentions it in one sentence only and directs readers to KM-DENTAL-09. Official English translation: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0020021
• F7｜confidence: verified (tested 2026-08-06; subparagraph 11 matched word for word)｜basis: law (Article 51, subparagraph 11, of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Act)｜period: current text｜geo: TW｜source S26｜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 statute lists non-covered items. Whether other procedures in a course of treatment are covered follows current National Health Insurance Administration announcements.
• F8｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 24660190)｜period: searched to 2012-10-31; published 2014; search date 2026-08-06｜geo: universal｜source S1｜span:「The reported indications for CBCT use in implant dentistry vary from preoperative analysis regarding specific anatomic considerations, site development using grafts, and computer-assisted treatment planning to postoperative evaluation focusing on complications due to damage of neurovascular structures.」「Effective doses for different CBCT devices exhibit a wide range with the lowest dose being almost 100 times less than the highest dose.」「Significant dose reduction can be achieved by adjusting operating parameters, including exposure factors and reducing the field of view (FOV) to the actual region of interest.」｜caveat: the search window is older and devices and doses have changed. This article uses it only to explain that imaging is an independent assessment item and that dose can be adjusted; it does not compare devices. Shared anchor with KM-DENTAL-09.
• F9｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (AO/AAP systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 40489307, 102 studies, 13,030 patients)｜period: published 2025｜geo: universal｜source S2｜span:「Prevalence rates at the patient level for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41-51) and 21% (95% CI, 17-24), respectively.」「For peri-implantitis, the significant risk indicators were periodontitis, diabetes mellitus, smoking habits, and alcohol consumption.」「Pooled estimates identified periodontitis, obesity, and smoking habits as significant systemic risk indicators for mucositis.」「Only risk indicators could be identified in the selected evidence.」｜caveat: risk indicators are associations, not causes; prevalence is a population-level figure, not an individual probability. Shared anchor with KM-DENTAL-20.
• F10｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 19885446, 91 included studies)｜period: published 2009; search date 2026-08-06. This article also cites the 2018 and 2026 reviews on the same topic (F16) for cross-checking; this entry is used only for placement-timing classification and soft-tissue outcomes｜geo: universal｜source S3｜span:「Bone augmentation procedures are effective in promoting bone fill and defect resolution at implants in postextraction sites, and are more successful with immediate (type 1) and early placement (type 2 and type 3) than with late placement (type 4).」「The majority of studies reported survival rates of over 95%.」「Recession of the facial mucosal margin is common with immediate (type 1) placement.」「Early implant placement (type 2 and type 3) is associated with a lower frequency of mucosal recession compared to immediate placement (type 1).」｜caveat: a 2009 review; included studies had mean follow-up of at least 12 months. Survival is a study-level estimate, not a promise of individual prognosis. This article does not cite a week-based timing window for the types because the abstract retrieved does not state one.
• F11｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (Cochrane systematic review, PMID 33899930, CD010176.pub3)｜period: searched to 2021-03-19; published 2021; updated version of the initial 2015 version; on search date 2026-08-06 no newer pub4 was found｜geo: universal｜source S4｜span:「We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants.」「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.」｜caveat: certainty of evidence is very low; it must not be rewritten as “bone augmentation can prevent the need for later augmentation.” Shared anchor with KM-DENTAL-09.
• F12｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 30624791)｜period: searched to 2018-05; published 2019｜geo: universal｜source S5｜span:「Overall, 25 trials (16 randomized/9 non-randomized) were identified, which included a total of 553 patients (42.2% male; mean age of 43.9 years).」「In these included studies and populations, various modalities for primary lateral bone augmentation rendered implant placement feasible.」「However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate due to bias and imprecision.」｜caveat: the authors report evidence quality from very low to moderate. This article uses it only to explain that bone procedures are an independent stage that can affect course length; it makes no effectiveness claim. Shared anchor with KM-DENTAL-09.
• F13｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 40221370)｜period: searched to 2024-08; published 2025｜geo: universal｜source S6｜span:「Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria.」「However, factors such as cost-effectiveness, edentulous span, and clinician expertise must be considered, as conventional methods remain suitable alternatives in certain straightforward situations.」｜caveat: the outcome is deviation between placement position and the plan, not clinical success or survival. This article does not cite deviation values, only its direction and the authors' limitations; it must not be rewritten as “a guide is better.” Shared anchor with KM-DENTAL-09.
• F14｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 23543525, CD003878.pub4)｜period: searched to 2012-06; published 2013; version-chain check 2026-08-06: a PubMed search for CD003878 returned 5 versions (2003/2004/2007/2009/2013); the 2013 version is the current latest version, the MEDLINE record has no UIN (no update), no withdrawal mark, and pubtype does not contain Retracted Publication｜geo: universal｜source S7｜span:「dental implants are kept load-free for 3 to 8 months to establish osseointegration (conventional loading)」「immediate (within 1 week), early (between 1 week and 2 months), and conventional (after 2 months) loading」「26 trials including a total of 1217 participants and 2120 implants were included」「the mean rate of implant failure in all 26 trials was a low 2.5%」「Overall there was no convincing evidence of a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure, or bone loss associated with different loading times」｜caveat: the 3-to-8-month sentence is from the review's BACKGROUND section (a description of traditional practice), not a result or recommendation of the review and not a timing promise for any individual case. The authors report 12 studies at high risk of bias; follow-up ranged from 4 months to 1 year. Shared anchor with KM-DENTAL-20.
• F15｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 24660200)｜period: searched to 2012-08; published 2014｜geo: universal｜source S8｜span:「Immediately and conventionally loaded single-implant crowns are equally successful regarding implant survival and marginal bone loss.」「This conclusion is primarily derived from studies evaluating implants inserted with a torque ≥ 20 to 45 Ncm or an implant stability quotient (ISQ) ≥ 60 to 65 and with no need for simultaneous bone augmentation.」｜caveat: the conclusion is limited to cases with high primary stability and no simultaneous bone augmentation; it must not be generalized into “everyone can have a tooth immediately.” This article provides no treatment duration from it. Shared anchor with KM-DENTAL-09 and KM-DENTAL-20.
• F16｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 41574557)｜period: published 2026-02; currency check 2026-08-06: this is an update of the same team's 2018 version (PMID 30328194). This article uses the update and discontinues use of the old figures; pubtype is Journal Article/Systematic Review and does not contain Retracted Publication｜geo: universal｜source S9｜span:「From 11 427 records, 140 studies (42 RCTs; 98 CCTs/cohort studies) encompassing 10 456 implants met the criteria.」「Protocols 1A, 1C, 2-3C, 4A, 4B, and 4C satisfy scientific and/or clinical validation thresholds, whereas 1B and 2-3B remain insufficiently documented despite high numeric survival.」｜caveat: weighted cumulative survival is a study-level estimate, not a promise of individual success. This article deliberately does not list survival values for each combination so that they are not read as efficacy claims; limited to fixed implant prostheses in partially dentate patients.
• F17｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline (ITI Group 5 Consensus Report, PMID 37750529, pubtype includes Consensus Statement)｜period: published 2023-09｜geo: universal｜source S10｜span:「the Type 1A protocol (immediate placement and immediate loading), when utilized in the anterior maxilla under favorable conditions, is considered predictable and is associated with high survival rates」「The procedure is considered clinically viable and is associated with aesthetic outcomes, although surgical, technical, and biological complications can occur.」｜caveat: the consensus is limited to single missing teeth in the anterior maxilla under favorable conditions and must not be generalized to all sites or all patients. The consensus report is based on two systematic reviews and expert experience, not randomized-trial results.
• F18｜confidence: verified (for record only)｜basis: withdrawn_publication/not_evidence (PMID 29791009, Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5(5):CD006698, title includes WITHDRAWN)｜period: withdrawn 2018-05-23｜geo: universal｜source S11｜span:「WITHDRAWN: Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement.」｜caveat: this entry records one point only: for one-stage versus two-stage placement, there is currently no active, valid Cochrane conclusion. The contents and conclusions of the withdrawn publication must never be cited as clinical evidence. This article instead cites the two non-Cochrane systematic reviews F19 and F20.
• F19｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis, PMID 29574852, 11 included studies)｜period: published 2018-05｜geo: universal｜source S12｜span:「Results of this systematic review revealed a small higher rate (2%) of early implant failure when a non-submerged healing approach is performed.」「The power of the evidence about the effects on MBL is low, but present results seem to favour non-submerged healing, although with a very small effect size.」｜caveat: included studies excluded immediate-loading cases; the authors report low evidence strength for marginal bone. The original says only “a small higher rate (2%)” and does not identify an absolute or relative risk difference. This article records 2% exactly as written and states that uncertainty; it must not be rewritten as percentage points or as an individual risk.
• F20｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 29316568, 6 randomized trials included in analysis)｜period: published 2018｜geo: universal｜source S13｜span:「There were no differences between the two interventions regarding implant or prosthesis failures, and (2) submerged implants exhibited statistically significantly more MBL, but this difference was not clinically relevant.」「These conclusions should be interpreted with caution, since the present review is underpowered and the included RCTs were considered to be at high risk of bias.」｜caveat: the authors report inadequate power and high risk of bias in 4 included trials. Its direction is not fully consistent with F19, so this article presents both rather than choosing one claim.
• F21｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 27041111)｜period: searched to 2015-07-31; published 2016｜geo: universal｜source S14｜span:「Human studies reporting on soft tissue augmentation/correction methods around submucosally osseointegrated implants during second-stage surgery up to July 31, 2015 were considered.」「Overall, eight prospective studies (risk of bias: high) and two case series (risk of bias: high) were included.」「Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, no meta-analysis could be performed.」｜caveat: all included studies had high risk of bias and meta-analysis was impossible. This article cites only two points: soft tissue may be addressed during second-stage surgery, and evidence quality for the question is limited. It cites no conclusion on superiority of a technique.
• F22｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 40553823)｜period: searched 2025-03; published 2025-09 (current latest version)｜geo: universal｜source S15｜span:「Data were extracted from seven clinical studies involving 151 partially dentate patients.」「Digital impressions demonstrated significantly lower deviation than conventional impressions, indicating superior spatial accuracy in certain clinical settings. However, no significant difference was observed in angular displacement. Considerable heterogeneity (I² = 80-97 %) across studies limits the certainty of pooled outcomes.」「Digital impressions are a clinically acceptable alternative for short-span implant restorations in partially dentate patients, though caution is warranted in cases involving long-span or angulated implants.」｜caveat: limited to partially dentate patients, with a small sample and very high heterogeneity. This article does not recommend a scanner or brand; impression method is a clinical judgment.
• F23｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 33678434, 12 included studies)｜period: searched 2020-09-23; published 2022｜geo: universal｜source S16｜span:「Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative and quantitative analysis.」「Digital scanning was more time-efficient and was preferred by patients for all 4 analyzed outcomes (comfort, anxiety, nausea, time perception).」｜caveat: outcomes are patient experience and working time, not clinical success. Scanning systems and operator experience differed among studies.
• F24｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 24660192, 73 included publications)｜period: searched 2000 to 2012-09; published 2014｜geo: universal｜source S17｜span:「Five-year survival rates of 96.03% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.85% to 97.43%) and 95.55% (95% CI: 92.96% to 97.19%) were calculated for cemented and screw-retained reconstructions, respectively (P = .69).」「Although no statistical difference was found between cement- and screw-retained reconstructions for survival or failure rates, screw-retained reconstructions exhibited fewer technical and biologic complications overall.」｜caveat: survival is a study-level estimate, not an individual promise. The search window is older and materials have changed, so this article also presents the newer F25.
• F25｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 38263555)｜period: searched 2014-01 to 2023-06; published 2024｜geo: universal｜source S18｜span:「A total of eight studies were included for qualitative synthesis and six studies for quantitative synthesis.」「The evidence suggests that the screw-retained group showed no statistically significant difference in marginal bone level, comparatively fewer biological complications, and relatively higher technical complications than the cemented group at different follow-up periods.」｜caveat: limited to all-ceramic crowns on zirconia abutments, with a small sample. Its direction for technical complications differs from F24, so this article presents both rather than choosing one claim.
• F26｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 33433078)｜period: published 2021｜geo: universal｜source S19｜span:「Five trials, with 1,570 implants in 617 patients, met the inclusion criteria.」「SPIT can significantly reduce the rate of peri-implantitis and marginal bone loss.」「The evidence on the role of SPIT in reducing the rate of peri-implant mucositis, on the other hand, remains limited.」｜caveat: 5 included trials (including retrospective studies); the authors state that more well-designed studies are needed. This is a population-level association, not an individual promise.
• F27｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 26701350)｜period: searched to 2015-06; published 2016; this article also cites the newer 2021 review on the same topic (F26)｜geo: universal｜source S20｜span:「Thirteen and 10 clinical trials were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis, respectively.」「it can be concluded that implant therapy must not be limited to the placement and restoration of dental implants but to the implementation of PIMT to potentially prevent biologic complications and hence to heighten the long-term success rate.」「Although it must be tailored to a patient's risk profiling, our findings suggest reason to claim a minimum recall PIMT interval of 5 to 6 mo.」｜caveat: 5 to 6 months is the minimum suggested by the review authors, who explicitly state that it must be tailored to risk profile; it is not a recall promise for any patient. The treating dentist decides the recall interval.
• F28｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (comparative study, PMID 26970296, 339 patients)｜period: published 2017｜geo: universal｜source S21｜span:「Healing outcomes of straightforward implant placement (I) were comparable to that of a simple extraction (SE)」「Prevalence for complications 1 week postoperatively was IGBR (20%), P (15.6%), I (12.7%)」｜caveat: two centers in Hong Kong and Nanjing; non-randomized; a group-level pattern. This article uses it only as a one-week post-operative reference point; post-operative care details are in KM-DENTAL-20. Shared anchor with KM-DENTAL-20.
• F29｜no external source｜basis: editorial (evidence-gap and policy statement, not a pending-verification claim)｜period: 2026-08-06｜geo: universal｜source S28｜This article does not provide: (1) any monetary amount or price range (site policy; charges depend on the standard approved by each Taiwan municipality/county/city and on the institution's quotation; see F6, F7, and KM-DENTAL-09); (2) a general promise of total treatment days or months (it depends on individual bone conditions and the treatment plan; see F14, F15, F16); (3) a week-based timing window for placement-timing types (the abstract retrieved in this search does not state one; do not fill it from memory); (4) any conclusion on the superiority of equipment, technique, or brand; or (5) any medication advice (a prescribing judgment for the physician; see F4).

Source list

All access dates are 2026-08-06. PubMed entries were retrieved with E-utilities efetch and their abstracts checked word for word; statute pages were opened in ego-browser to confirm reachability and verbatim text.

• S1 Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:55-77. PMID 24660190. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24660190
• S2 Galarraga-Vinueza ME, Pagni S, Finkelman M, et al. Prevalence, incidence, systemic, behavioral, and patient-related risk factors and indicators for peri-implant diseases: An AO/AAP systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 2025;96(6):587-633. PMID 40489307. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40489307
• S3 Chen ST, Buser D. Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24 Suppl:186-217. PMID 19885446. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19885446
• S4 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
• S5 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/
• S6 Khaohoen A, Powcharoen W, Yoda N, Rungsiyakull C, Rungsiyakull P. Accuracy in dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing computer-assisted and noncomputer-assisted approaches. J Prosthet Dent. 2025;134(1):91.e1-91.e25. PMID 40221370. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40221370
• S7 Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Maghaireh H, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(3):CD003878. PMID 23543525. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23543525 (version-chain check: PubMed returned 5 versions for CD003878; 2013 is the current latest version, with no newer version and no withdrawal mark)
• S8 Benic GI, Mir-Mari J, Hämmerle CH. Loading protocols for single-implant crowns: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:222-238. PMID 24660200. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24660200
• S9 Gallucci GO, Hamilton A, Akhondi S, Pala K, Peña-Cardelles JF. Current State of Evidence for Implant Placement and Loading in Partially Edentulous Patients: A Systematic Review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2026;28(1):e70120. PMID 41574557. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41574557 (update of PMID 30328194; this article uses this version)
• S10 Morton D, Wismeijer D, Chen S, et al. Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Implant placement and loading protocols. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023;34 Suppl 26:349-356. PMID 37750529. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37750529
• S11 Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Chew YS, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. WITHDRAWN: Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5(5):CD006698. PMID 29791009. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29791009 (withdrawn publication, recorded only as an evidence gap and not used as clinical evidence)
• S12 Troiano G, Lo Russo L, Canullo L, Ciavarella D, Lo Muzio L, Laino L. Early and late implant failure of submerged versus non-submerged implant healing: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(5):613-623. PMID 29574852. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29574852
• S13 Moustafa Ali RM, Alqutaibi AY, El-Din Gomaa AS, Abdallah MF. Effect of Submerged vs Nonsubmerged Implant Placement Protocols on Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(1):15-22. PMID 29316568. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29316568
• S14 Bassetti RG, Stähli A, Bassetti MA, Sculean A. Soft tissue augmentation procedures at second-stage surgery: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(7):1369-1387. PMID 27041111. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27041111
• S15 Park JS, Alshehri YFA, Kruger E, Villata L. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions in partially dentate patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2025;160:105918. PMID 40553823. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40553823
• S16 Manicone PF, De Angelis P, Rella E, Damis G, D'Addona A. Patient preference and clinical working time between digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(4):589-596. PMID 33678434. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33678434
• S17 Wittneben JG, Millen C, Brägger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions--a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:84-98. PMID 24660192. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24660192
• S18 Potdukhe SS, Iyer JM, Nadgere JB. Evaluation of marginal bone level, technical and biological complications between screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported crowns. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2024;24(1):3-13. PMID 38263555. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38263555
• S19 Atieh MA, AlAli F, Alsabeeha NHM. Outcome of supportive peri-implant therapy on the rates of peri-implant diseases and marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Quintessence Int. 2021;52(2):122-131. PMID 33433078. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33433078
• S20 Monje A, Aranda L, Diaz KT, et al. Impact of Maintenance Therapy for the Prevention of Peri-implant Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2016;95(4):372-379. PMID 26701350. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26701350
• S21 Yao J, Lee KK, McGrath C, et al. Comparison of patient-centered outcomes after routine implant placement, teeth extraction, and periodontal surgical procedures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(4):373-380. PMID 26970296. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26970296
• S22 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 63 (Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan)). Official English translation (tested reachable in ego-browser on 2026-08-06; statutory text matched word for word)
• S23 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 81 (Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan)). Official English translation (reachable on 2026-08-06; statutory text matched word for word)
• S24 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 87 (Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan)). Official English translation (reachable on 2026-08-06; statutory text matched word for word)
• S25 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 21 (Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan)). Official English translation (reachable on 2026-08-06; statutory text matched word for word)
• S26 Taiwan National Health Insurance Act, Article 51 (Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan)). law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0060001 flno=51 (reachable on 2026-08-06; subparagraph 11 matched word for word)
• S27 Internal data: appendix to question 25 in `analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` (complete GSC data for 14 clinic sites, data window 2025-03 to 2026-08), 6 query terms across 5 sites, with item-by-item reconciliation available. Not a medical-fact basis; used only for topic selection.
• S28 Editorial framework (no external source): the nine-stage timeline, eight-question checklist, and evidence-gap statement in this article; see F2 and F29.

Internal citation chain

• How fees are broken down and how to read a quotation: How much does one dental implant cost? There is no official fixed price, but you can understand the quotation (KM-DENTAL-09, draft). The imaging, bone procedures, and surgical methods mentioned in Stages 1 through 3 are cost-component variables in that card. Both cards share Taiwan institutional anchors—Article 21 of Taiwan's Medical Care Act and Article 51 of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Act—with identical verbatim spans.
• What to eat from the day of surgery through that week, and whether coffee or tea is allowed: How soon can I eat after an implant? Can I drink coffee or tea? (KM-DENTAL-20, draft). This article gives only one reference point in Stage 4 (F28); details are in that card. They share loading-timing anchors (F14 = F10 in that card; F15 = F12 in that card).
• What bone-graft material is and whether it is needed: What is bone-graft material? How much does it cost, and does it hurt? (KM-DENTAL-24, draft).
• Complications of bone augmentation and grading of failure signs: Can bone-graft material have after-effects? What happens if it fails? (KM-DENTAL-28, draft). This article only explains in Stage 3 whether it may lengthen treatment; see that card for complications.
• Expectation-setting before the decision and long-term complications: Will I regret getting an implant? Are online stories of painful experiences true? (KM-DENTAL-07, draft). The prevalence of peri-implant disease cited in Stage 9 of this article (F9) shares the same population anchor with that card.