全瓷冠會後悔嗎？缺點有哪些？把網路上的抱怨，一類一類對回文獻｜證據鏈

##事實（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: high｜basis: internal_dataset（S24，非醫學宣稱）｜period: GSC 保留窗（2025-03-22 起）｜geo: TW｜本題選題依據＝14 診所站搜尋資料對帳，4 詞項、跨 3 站，逐筆可對帳｜caveat: 內部數據，發布時不進可見層。
• F2｜confidence: n/a｜basis: 結構性整理（編輯框架，S25，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「不引用也不否定論壇貼文、改對照文獻類別」的處理原則 ②本文與牙冠費用卡的 canonical 邊界（材質存活率與報價拆項歸該卡，缺點與落差歸本文）③五類缺點的分類與排序 ④「保固與崩瓷處理屬醫病約定事項、應取得書面」之就醫溝通建議 ⑤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，故本文不寫：①任何金額、區間或行情 ②全瓷冠可使用年限的個人預測 ③台灣本土的全瓷冠併發症或存活統計 ④「哪一種材質對某個人比較好」的個別建議 ⑤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）⑥各類併發症的絕對發生率（現有回顧多以相對風險、區間或敘述性清單呈現，本文不自行換算）。
• F4｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（overview / summary of systematic reviews，PMID 34119611）｜period: 檢索至 2021-02，2021 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「38 eligible articles published between 2006 and 2021 were included. The reviews were based on 128 in vivo studies on approximately 10,000 zirconia restorations.」「Chipping was the most often technical complication, followed by framework fracture, loss of retention, marginal discrepancies/discoloration, occlusal roughness and abutment/screw loosening. Color mismatch was the only esthetic complication. Biological complications were caries, endodontic complications, tooth fracture, periodontal disease, abrasion/attrition, persisting pain, high sensitivity…」「The predominant technical problem of veneering fractures could be overcome with adapted design or fabrication and application of monolithic restorations, but reviews of clinical studies on this subject are rare.」「The impact of zirconia restorations on the masticatory system remains unclear.」｜caveat: 綜覽對象為系統性回顧而非原始研究；併發症為依出現頻率排序之清單，非發生率估計，正文未將其讀成比例。本篇同時涵蓋牙支撐與植體支撐修復體，本文僅取牙支撐相關之併發症類別。版本時效查核（2026-08-06）：以 umbrella review／overview of systematic reviews ＋ zirconia 檢索 2022–2026 刊期，取回之較新綜覽主題為植體、鋯基台、黏著面處理與全弓贋復，未見取代本篇之牙支撐氧化鋯修復體綜覽。
• F5｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，PMID 35660957）｜period: 2022 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Fifty-two studies were included and most of them had unclear risk of bias. Considering all reported fractures/chipping, for veneered crowns with 1 to 3 years of follow-up, the relative risk (RR) of fracture in relation to loss or retention was 3.95 (95% CI 1.18-13.23; p = 0.03). For 4 to 6 years of follow-up, the RR was 5.44 (95% CI 1.41-20.92; p = 0.01).」「When only framework fractures were considered, there were no significant differences for the RR in all follow-up periods (p > 0.05).」「there is approximately four times higher chance of fracture/chipping than loss of retention for both single and multi-unit tooth-supported veneered zirconia restorations.」｜caveat: 關鍵口徑——RR 比較的是兩種失敗型態（斷裂或崩瓷 vs 失去固位）之間的相對風險，不是崩瓷的絕對發生率，正文已明寫此限制。族群限定為外飾式氧化鋯，不含單體式。多數納入研究偏誤風險不明。
• F6｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，PMID 34615842）｜period: 2022 刊出（2021-10 電子預刊）｜geo: universal｜span: 「From nine articles included, there was a total of 594 participants and 1657 single-tooth restorations with a mean exposure time of 1.07 years, and follow-up period between 0.3 and 2.1 years.」「There was high heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 93.74% and Q = 79.672).」｜caveat: 本文僅取其樣本規模與追蹤長度作為「單體式氧化鋯臨床資料仍短」之依據，未引用其存活率區間（該區間之上緣與 KM-DENTAL-11 之材質數據屬同族內容，依分工不在本文重寫）。
• F7｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review，PMID 42008751）｜period: 檢索 2012–2023 文獻，2026 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Crown preparation leads to irreversible dental tissue loss, which affects long-term restoration success.」「Twenty-three studies were included. Six studies directly quantified tooth-structure removal or residual dentin thickness using gravimetric analysis, micro-CT, digital volumetric analysis, or related methods.」｜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，納入臨床、體外與敘述性文獻，其 PROSPERO 註冊為回溯性登錄；本文僅取其對「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，亦未將其讀成對特定術式的推薦。
• F8｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・network meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials，PMID 38211687）｜period: 2024 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Eligibility criteria included clinical studies reporting on MVL on antagonist's tooth up to 24 months following the permanent crown placement. From a total of 5697 articles, 7 studies reporting on 261 crowns for 177 subjects with 3 ceramic materials (Lithium disilicate, metal-ceramic, monolithic zirconia) were included. Among all, metal-ceramic and zirconia caused significantly higher enamel tooth wear on antagonist teeth, representing 82.5 µm [54.4; 110.6]) and 40.1 µm [22.2; 58.0]) more MVL than natural teeth group. In contrast, lithium disilicate showed only 5.0 µm [-48.2; 58.1]) more MVL than occurs on opposing natural teeth.」｜caveat: 追蹤上限 24 個月、僅 7 項研究，作者自陳樣本數與研究數不足、需更多同質性隨機對照試驗；數值為對咬牙平均垂直高度喪失（MVL）與天然牙對咬組之差，非牙冠本身磨耗。與 F9 對材料排序不一致，正文已並陳。
• F9｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，PMID 41590161）｜period: 檢索至 2025-09，2026 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Nine clinical studies (5 randomized controlled trials and 4 prospective studies) involving 203 patients (2015-2025) were included.」「Follow-up ranged from 6 to 24 months.」「Meta-analysis revealed significant enamel wear from zirconia (p < 0.05; MD: -1.32; 95% CI: -2.06 to -0.57; I2 = 94%) and lithium disilicate (p < 0.05; MD: -0.45; 95% CI: -0.71 to -0.19; I2 = 2%). Feldspathic ceramics did not show significant enamel wear (p = 0.06; MD: -2.77; 95% CI: -5.66 to 0.13; I2 = 96%).」「Ceramic materials generally cause greater wear on opposing posterior natural enamel than enamel-to-enamel contact. Monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns produced higher antagonist wear, whereas metal-ceramic restorations with feldspathic veneering appeared more conservative for preserving posterior enamel.」｜caveat: 摘要未標明 MD 之計量單位，故本文僅引用其 I² 與結論方向，不引用 MD 數值（避免單位不明造成誤讀）；氧化鋯組異質性極高（I² 94%）。本篇與 F8 對材料排序結論相反，正文據實並陳、未擇一採信。
• F10｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed（前瞻性臨床研究，非系統性回顧，PMID 42536234）｜period: 36 個月追蹤，2026 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Out of thirty-two patients, each provided with one 5 mol% yttria-stabilized zirconia crown on a natural tooth, ten met the inclusion criteria.」「The mean maximum vertical loss for the antagonist teeth to the zirconia crowns was 216 µm (SD ± 113 µm).」「The zirconia crowns exhibited 38 µm (SD ± 14 µm).」「The monolithic zirconia crowns induced approximately twice the amount of wear on opposing enamel compared with natural tooth contacts.」「After three years, the monolithic zirconia crowns caused significantly greater antagonist enamel wear than natural enamel contacts, yet the wear was comparable to that observed for other dental ceramic materials.」｜caveat: 單一中心、納入分析僅 10 人，證據等級低於 F8、F9，本文僅用於補「追蹤到 3 年」的時間軸，未用於材料排序；該文利益衝突聲明載有多位作者與牙材廠商之顧問、演講與第三方研究資助關係。
• F11｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，PMID 28967401）｜period: 2018 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Eight studies were included for qualitative synthesis, but only 5 for the meta-analysis. Three studies were categorized as moderate risk and 5 as high risk of bias.」「Increased hazard ratio (HR=7.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.50 to 23.95) and odds ratio (OR=2.52; 95% CI=1.24 to 5.12) were observed considering only anterior ceramic veneers.」「Nevertheless, limited data from the meta-analysis and from the restricted number of included studies suggested that differences in the overall odds of failure concerning SB and other types of ceramic restorations did not favor or disfavor any association (OR=1.10; 95% CI=0.43 to 2.8).」「The overall quality of evidence was considered very low according to the GRADE criteria.」「Within the limitations of this systematic review, the overall result from the meta-analysis did not favor any association between SB and increased odds of failure for ceramic restorations.」｜caveat: 關鍵族群限定——HR 7.74 與 OR 2.52 僅適用於前牙陶瓷貼片次群組，不可外推至全瓷冠，正文已明寫；整體證據品質 GRADE 極低。版本時效查核（2026-08-06）：以睡眠磨牙＋陶瓷修復體檢索 2018–2026 刊期，未見取代本篇的同題系統性回顧，較新的直接證據為 F12 之臨床試驗。
• F12｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（prospective clinical study，材料隨機分派，PMID 41967567）｜period: 3 年追蹤，2026 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「In this prospective clinical study, 109 patients requiring a single molar crown were assessed for SB using a structured questionnaire, clinical examination, and a portable electromyography device (BruxOff).」「Based on SB status and randomized crown material allocation, patients were assigned to four groups: LiDi-SB (n = 27), LiDi-no SB (n = 21), Zir-SB (n = 21), and Zir-no SB (n = 24). Protective occlusal guards were not permitted.」「No technical complications occurred in any group.」「Success rates were 81.5% for LiDi-SB and 95.2% for LiDi-no SB (95% CI difference: -0.3590 to 0.1450; p = 0.211), and 85.7% for Zir-SB and 95.8% for Zir-no SB (95% CI difference: -0.3390 to 0.1530; p = 0.326).」「sleep bruxism showed no detectable impact on the incidence of technical complications or on the survival and success of monolithic LiDi or Zir molar crowns.」｜caveat: 隨機化的是牙冠材料，磨牙與否為觀察分組（無法隨機分派）；每組 21 至 27 人、追蹤 3 年，未達顯著不等於無差異（成功率數值上磨牙組較低）；試驗設計不允許使用護牙套，故不可讀成「使用或不使用咬合板」的比較。族群限定為單顆臼齒單體式牙冠。
• F13｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（evidence-based dentistry commentary，PMID 42323516）｜period: 2026 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Survival was defined as restoration remaining in situ without replacement. Success is defined as restoration without biological or technical complications.」「No statistically significant differences were observed between SB and non-SB patients or between lithium disilicate and zirconia crowns.」｜caveat: 屬對 F12 試驗的評論文，非獨立原始研究，本文僅用其對結果定義與統計結論的複述，未引用其臨床建議。
• F14｜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｜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.」「Future high-quality randomized clinical controlled trials with a larger population are required to confirm the evidence as only observational studies were considered in this paper.」｜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，非牙冠本身存活；族群為固定假牙之活髓基座牙（含單冠與牙橋），與 KM-DENTAL-11 同錨。
• F15｜confidence: high｜basis: clinical_guideline（2017 World Workshop 委託之敘述性回顧，PMID 29926939）｜period: 2018 刊出｜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.」「Hypersensitivity reactions can occur to dental materials.」｜caveat: 敘述性回顧（narrative review），非統合分析；與 KM-DENTAL-11、KM-DENTAL-23 同錨。
• F16｜confidence: high｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，PMID 41489982）｜period: 檢索窗 2014–2024，2026 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Lithium-disilicate and zirconia-based all-ceramic SCs achieve five-year survival rates comparable to metal-ceramic crowns.」｜caveat: 本文僅取其總結論作一句摘述，各材質分項五年存活率之完整數據為 KM-DENTAL-11 之 canonical 內容，依分工不在本文重寫；族群層級估計，不可外推為個人預後。
• F17｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（overview of systematic reviews，PMID 40750081）｜period: 檢索更新至 2025-02，2025 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「However, substantial methodological heterogeneity, limited long-term data (>5 years), and a concentration of studies on a single product」「practitioners should communicate both the well-documented short- to medium-term benefits and the remaining uncertainties regarding long-term performance」｜caveat: 綜覽對象為系統性回顧而非原始研究；本文僅用其方法學限制與溝通建議之結論，未引用其存活率數值（同 KM-DENTAL-11 之處理）。
• F18｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis，PMID 41100150）｜period: 檢索 1999 至 2025-03，2025 線上刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「The meta-analysis of two clinical studies on 277 endocrowns and 246 crowns followed for 7 years demonstrated that the pooled risk ratio for success rate was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.69-1.27, P = 0.66), showing no significant difference in outcomes.」「Endocrowns demonstrate comparable clinical performance to conventional crowns for structurally compromised posterior teeth with or without post and cores.」｜caveat: 僅 5 篇臨床研究符合資格、4 篇進統合分析，作者明言研究數少且異質性高、需更多標準化試驗；族群限定為結構受損之後牙。線上先行版（online ahead of print），頁碼未定。
• F19｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed（systematic review・meta-analysis of RCTs，PMID 39558793）｜period: 檢索至 2024-02，2025 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Six RCTs were included. Resin matrix ceramic (RMC) and lithium disilicate (LDS) restorations had a 3-year survival rate of 89.3% (95% CI 76.4-95.3) and 93.7% (95% CI 83.7-97.7), respectively」「The long-term performance of posterior PCRs is uncertain.」｜caveat: 族群限定為後牙大範圍缺損之部分覆蓋修復（onlay、咬合面貼片、部分冠），非全冠對照；僅 6 項隨機對照試驗、追蹤 1 至 3 年，長期表現未定。全冠對上 onlay 之比較數據在 KM-DENTAL-11。
• F20｜confidence: high｜basis: law（S20）｜period: 現行條文（2026-08-06 實測 HTTP 200，逐字對得上）｜geo: TW｜醫療法第 21 條。逐字條文：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。
• F21｜confidence: high｜basis: law（S21）｜period: 現行條文（2026-08-06 實測 HTTP 200，逐字對得上）｜geo: TW｜醫療法第 81 條。逐字條文：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。
• F22｜confidence: high｜basis: law（S22）｜period: 現行條文（2026-08-06 實測 HTTP 200，逐字對得上）｜geo: TW｜醫療法第 87 條第 2 項。逐字條文：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。本條為本文合規註記之定位依據。
• F23｜confidence: high｜basis: law（S23）｜period: 現行條文（2026-08-06 實測 HTTP 200，逐字對得上）｜geo: TW｜全民健康保險法第 51 條第 11 款。逐字條文：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。
• F24｜confidence: high｜basis: official_statement（S18，跨卡已驗事實，同錨）｜period: 2026-08-05 以 ego-browser 實測（OP 複驗）｜geo: TW｜健保署醫材比價網兩個查詢軌之品項分類皆不含牙科，頁面全文無「牙」字。caveat: 本文未重複實測，沿用 本站的事實查核登錄表 之紀錄；官方資料庫可能更新，引用時請註明查證日期。
• F25｜confidence: high｜basis: official_statement（S19，跨卡已驗事實，同錨）｜period: 1090117 核定；頁面 2026-08-06 由 KM-DENTAL-11 以 ego-browser 實測可達｜geo: TW｜縣市衛生主管機關公告牙科收費標準之已驗例證＝臺北市政府衛生局「臺北市醫療機構牙科收費標準表」(1090117核定)。caveat: 本文未重複實測，僅一縣市例證，其他縣市各自公告；本文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）²²，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。全瓷冠治療涉及不可逆的齒質修磨，具醫療風險與禁忌症，可能出現崩瓷、底冠斷裂、失去固位、邊緣密合度不良或變色、對咬牙琺瑯質磨耗、二次蛀牙、牙髓症狀與牙齦反應等情形；實際治療方式與效果因人而異，須由牙醫師評估。本文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 Laumbacher H, Strasser T, Knüttel H, Rosentritt M. Long-term clinical performance and complications of zirconia-based tooth- and implant-supported fixed prosthodontic restorations: A summary of systematic reviews. J Dent. 2021;111:103723. PMID 34119611. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34119611（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S2 Gonzaga CC, Garcia PP, Wambier LM, Prochnow FHO, Madeira L, Cesar PF. Do tooth-supported zirconia restorations present more technical failures related to fracture or loss of retention? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(8):5129-5142. PMID 35660957. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35660957（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S3 Leitão CIMB, Fernandes GVO, Azevedo LPP, Araújo FM, Donato H, Correia ARM. Clinical performance of monolithic CAD/CAM tooth-supported zirconia restorations: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2022;66(3):374-384. PMID 34615842. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34615842（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S4 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）
• S5 Mao Z, Beuer F, Hey J, Schmidt F, Sorensen JA, Prause E. Antagonist enamel tooth wear produced by different dental ceramic systems: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. J Dent. 2024;142:104832. PMID 38211687. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38211687（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S6 Rosa CDDRD, Bento VAA, Duarte ND, et al. Comparative Wear of Opposing Natural Enamel by Different Ceramic Materials in Fixed Dental Protheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dent J (Basel). 2026;14(1):37. PMID 41590161. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41590161（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S7 Rygol J, Raith S, Wolfart S, et al. Thirty-six months in vivo wear of enamel antagonists to monolithic zirconia crowns. Clin Oral Investig. 2026;30(8):369. PMID 42536234. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42536234（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S8 de Souza Melo G, Batistella EÂ, Bertazzo-Silveira E, et al. Association of sleep bruxism with ceramic restoration failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(3):354-362. PMID 28967401. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28967401（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S9 Bömicke W, Schmitter M, Waldecker M, et al. Ceramic crowns and sleep bruxism: 3-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Dent. 2026;170:106691. PMID 41967567. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41967567（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03039985）
• S10 Khalid A, Al-Jewair T. Do sleep bruxism patients experience higher complication or failure rates with monolithic lithium disilicate or zirconia molar crowns? Evid Based Dent. 2026 Jun 20. PMID 42323516. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42323516（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S11 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）
• S12 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）
• S13 Pjetursson BE, Pitta J, Balet A, et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Evaluating the Survival, Failure, and Complication Rates of Metal-Ceramic, Veneered, and Monolithic All-Ceramic Tooth-Supported Single Crowns-Part 1. Int J Prosthodont. 2026;39(3):308-324. PMID 41489982. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41489982（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；本文僅取結論一句，完整數據在 KM-DENTAL-11）
• S14 Laumbacher H, Scholz KJ, Knüttel H, Rosentritt M. Clinical outcomes and complications of tooth- and implant-supported lithium (di)silicate based single crowns: an overview of systematic reviews. J Dent. 2025;162:106004. PMID 40750081. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40750081（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S15 Niakou A, Stratos A, Pissadakis M, et al. Complications and Survival Rates of Endocrowns vs. Crowns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2025 Oct 16 (online ahead of print). PMID 41100150. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41100150（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S16 Prott LS, Pieralli S, Klein P, et al. Survival and Complications of Partial Coverage Restorations on Posterior Teeth-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025;37(3):620-641. PMID 39558793. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39558793（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S17 保留編號（本文文獻檢索過程中列為候選但未採用之來源，未進入任何事實宣稱）。
• S18 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 本站的事實查核登錄表；本文未重複實測）
• S19 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)（跨卡已驗事實，同錨）。health.gov.taipei 收費標準頁（2026-08-06 由 KM-DENTAL-11 以 ego-browser 實測可達，頁面標題逐字對得上；本文未重複實測）
• S20 醫療法 第 21 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=21（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，條文逐字對得上）
• S21 醫療法 第 81 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=81（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，條文逐字對得上）
• S22 醫療法 第 87 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=87（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，第 2 項逐字對得上）
• S23 全民健康保險法 第 51 條（全國法規資料庫）。law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0060001 flno=51（取用 2026-08-06，HTTP 200，第 11 款逐字對得上）
• S24 內部資料：`analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` 第 37 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。
• S25 編輯框架（無外部來源）：本文的五類缺點分類、與牙冠費用卡的分工邊界、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（必讀）：做一顆牙冠（假牙牙套）要多少錢？先看懂報價單（KM-DENTAL-11，草稿）。兩卡的 canonical 邊界：歸該卡的是——各材質單冠五年存活率的完整分項、環箍與剩餘齒質的預後因素、全冠對上 onlay 的存活率比較、單顆牙冠報價的六塊拆項與查證管道；歸本文的是——缺點與併發症的類型學、對咬牙琺瑯質磨耗、不可逆修磨的證據、磨牙者的證據現況、期待落差。本文在材質數據上只留一句摘述並指向該卡，不重寫；兩卡共用 F14（PMID 34516686）、F15（PMID 29926939）、F16（PMID 41489982）、F17（PMID 40750081）四條文獻錨，英文 span 依引用級要求逐字一致。
• 名詞分流卡：假牙牙套（牙冠）是什麼？缺牙可以做牙套嗎？（KM-DENTAL-23，草稿）。如果你其實還不確定自己要做的是牙冠、牙橋還是植體支撐的假牙，請從該卡開始；本文假設你已經被建議做全瓷冠。
• 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）。兩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），但對象不同：該卡處理植體與植體周圍組織，本文處理牙支撐的全瓷冠。
• 上游決策卡：蛀牙了一定要補嗎？補牙怎麼補？（KM-DENTAL-12，草稿）。若你的情況是「蛀牙還沒大到非做冠不可」，修復層級的選擇判準在該卡；本文承接的是已經被建議做全瓷冠之後的那一段。