How much does clear-aligner treatment cost, and how is it calculated?｜證據鏈

How much does clear-aligner treatment cost, and how is it calculated?｜證據鏈

F-Units (fact ledger)

Each entry records confidence, basis, period, geography, verbatim span, and caveat. Evidence hierarchy: law > official statement > clinical guideline > peer reviewed > textbook.

• F1｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (Taiwan Medical Care Act Art. 21; National Laws and Regulations Database, curl checked HTTP 200 on 2026-08-06; statutory block compared verbatim)｜period: current provision｜geo: TW｜span:「醫療機構收取醫療費用之標準，由直轄市、縣（市）主管機關核定之。」｜caveat: The provision contains no amount; this card cites no approved amount. Same anchor in KM-DENTAL-08 and KM-DENTAL-44.
• F2｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (Taiwan Medical Care Act Art. 22; HTTP 200 checked 2026-08-06)｜period: current provision｜geo: TW｜span:「醫療機構收取醫療費用，應開給載明收費項目及金額之收據。醫療機構不得違反收費標準，超額或擅立收費項目收費。」｜caveat: Administrative fee rule, not individual legal advice.
• F3｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (Taiwan Medical Care Act Art. 81; HTTP 200 checked 2026-08-06)｜period: current provision｜geo: TW｜span:「醫療機構診治病人時，應向病人或其法定代理人、配偶、親屬或關係人告知其病情、治療方針、處置、用藥、預後情形及可能之不良反應。」
• F4｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (Taiwan Medical Care Act Art. 87; HTTP 200 checked 2026-08-06)｜period: current provision｜geo: TW｜span:「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: Basis for this card's compliance note.
• F5｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (Taiwan National Health Insurance Act Art. 51; HTTP 200 checked 2026-08-06)｜period: current provision｜geo: TW｜span（第 3 款）:「藥癮治療、美容外科手術、非外傷治療性齒列矯正、預防性手術、人工協助生殖技術、變性手術。」span（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: These are non-covered items; individual determination of traumatic-treatment orthodontics and other treatment coverage follows current Taiwan NHI Administration rules and review. No individual determination here. Same anchor in KM-DENTAL-08.
• F6｜confidence: verified｜basis: official_statement (Taipei City Medical Institution Dental Fee Schedule, approved version 1090117; PDF retrieved by curl on 2026-08-06: HTTP 200, 411,466 bytes, SHA256 33588b87…f98183; text extracted by pdftotext and compared verbatim)｜period: approved 17 January, ROC year 109｜geo: TW｜span（項次 3-50 矯正諮詢費，單位每次）:「拍攝全口 X 光片，由牙醫師提供患者矯正的諮詢，諮詢時間至少 30 分鐘，會提供諮詢書面內容或是錄音內容，不包含矯正檢查與分析。」span（項次 3-51 矯正檢查、診斷、治療計畫，單位每次）:「包含矯正的檢查與分析，擬定所有可能性的治療計畫。」span（項次 3-52 矯正 3D 影像檢查及診斷、治療計畫，單位每次）:「1.包含矯正的檢查與分析，另外藉由電腦軟體將 CT 數位 X 光片資料組成 3D 顱顏影像，擬定所有可能性的治療計畫。2.CT 數位 X 光片費用內含。」｜caveat: Item structure from one local schedule, not nationwide; no unit-price figure is cited.
• F7｜confidence: verified｜basis: official_statement (same PDF as F6, read item by item)｜period: approved version 1090117｜geo: TW｜items 3-76/3-77/3-78 “single-arch clear orthodontic treatment (general/difficult/high difficulty)” are per arch; 3-79/3-80/3-81 are two-arch. Verbatim notice: general:「1.門牙水平覆咬與垂直覆咬為正常，無顎骨間差異，牙齒排列輕度擁擠。2.材料費另計。」difficult:「1.門牙水平覆咬大於 3mm 或垂直覆咬大於 3mm，或有顎骨間差異，或牙齒排列中度擁擠，或錯咬。2.材料費另計。」high difficulty:「1.嚴重下顎前凸，門牙水平覆咬大於 7mm 或垂直覆咬大於 7mm，或有嚴重顎骨間差異，或牙齒排列嚴重擁擠，或骨性開咬、骨性錯咬。2.材料費另計。」｜caveat: “Material fees charged separately” is this table's wording, not an assertion that every clinic must bill that way; the tier criteria are fee-approval conditions, not diagnostic criteria, and a dentist assigns an individual tier after examination.
• F8｜confidence: verified｜basis: official_statement (same F6 PDF)｜period: approved version 1090117｜geo: TW｜items 3-55 to 3-60, fixed appliances for one/two arches (general/difficult/high difficulty), state:「包括此術式的各種材料準備與技術執行。」｜caveat: Used only for an within-document comparison with F7's materials wording; it is not a comparison of appliance quality or price.
• F9｜confidence: verified｜basis: official_statement (same F6 PDF)｜period: approved version 1090117｜geo: TW｜span（項次 3-72 數位印模，單位每次）:「經由數位掃描取得口腔資料。」span（項次 3-73 數位模型製作，單位每療程）:「1.經由數位掃描取得資料，經由電腦運算後，再藉由軟體呈現牙齒模型。2.每一療程會需至少兩次的模型製作。」span（項次 3-74 數位排牙，單位每療程）:「1.將數位模型資料於電腦中進行排牙。2.每一療程會需至少一次的排牙。」｜caveat: The name column for 3-74 ends with a specific product name. km does not reproduce it for neutrality; this entry retains only the Chinese item name and complete notice text.
• F10｜confidence: verified｜basis: official_statement (same F6 PDF)｜period: approved version 1090117｜geo: TW｜span（項次 3-75「隱形牙套（Clear Aligner）」，單位每副）:「1.矯正完成後未依照醫囑佩帶維持器造成牙齒排列不正的簡單問題時，製作的裝置。2.包括此術式的各種材料準備與技術執行。」｜caveat: This is a different item, unit, and setting of use from F7 clear orthodontics. It only illustrates that one informal phrase may mean different items; it makes no price statement.
• F11｜confidence: verified｜basis: official_statement (same F6 PDF)｜period: approved version 1090117｜geo: TW｜items 3-65 removable retainer, 3-66 fixed retainer, 3-67 difficult one-arch fixed retainer; items 3-68/3-69/3-70 adjustment fee state:「非本院所矯正治療患者，委由本院所治療調整。」; item 3-71 states:「矯正治療完成後的複診與維持器調整。」｜caveat: Retainers and adjustment fees are separate table items, but whether they are included in a particular quotation is an institution's written agreement; no inference is made.
• F12｜confidence: verified｜basis: official_statement (same F6 PDF, endnote)｜period: approved version 1090117｜geo: TW｜span:「【附註】：本表適用於本市醫院、診所牙科收費標準：一、未列出項目不得逾本市各醫學中心收費標準。二、醫療機構收費標準高於本表者，須依醫療法規定，經臺北市政府衛生局核定後，始得收取。三、本表所列項目日後納為衛福部中央健保署醫療服務支付項目後，依「臺北市醫療機構醫療費用收費標準核定原則」規定辦理：(一) 符合健保給付規定者：依健保支付標準規定辦理。(二) 不符合健保給付規定者：依健保支付標準（醫學中心等級）二倍以下之範圍內核定收費。」｜caveat: Taipei-only note; other localities publish their own. No legal-applicability determination is made.
• F13｜confidence: verified｜basis: official_statement (Taipei Department of Health fee-schedule page, loaded in ego-browser 2026-08-06)｜period: page data updated 115-07-15｜geo: TW｜test record: page title exactly “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)”; body named the PDF attachment. The attachment was downloaded separately by curl: HTTP 200, 411,466 bytes; SHA256 matched KM-DENTAL-44's same-day record｜caveat: one locality only. Reachable entry point does not show this subject's item, so F7 confirms the clear-orthodontic items separately.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「臺北市醫療機構牙科收費標準表(奉核版-1090117)」]；核定字號「北市衛醫字第1093010058號」逐字驗自該收費標準表 PDF（2026-08-08 取回，HTTP 200、411,466 bytes、21 頁，pdftotext -layout 抽文字層）
• F14｜confidence: verified｜basis: official_statement (medical-device classification database commissioned by Taiwan FDA; loaded in ego-browser 2026-08-06, simple search “矯正器”, 4 results, fields read)｜period: status searched 2026-08-06｜geo: TW｜span（分類分級代碼 F.5470，中文名稱「牙科矯正塑膠托架及牙套」，英文名稱「Orthodontic plastic bracket and aligner」，等級 2，分類類別 F-牙科學）:「(a)牙科矯正塑膠托架是一種塑膠器材，黏於牙齒上，利用彈性矯正線施壓力於牙齒上使牙齒 改變位置。(b)牙科矯正牙套為對於輕微不正咬合之齒列進行治療，可持續溫和移動牙齒位置之裝置。該裝置由熱塑性樹脂構成，可能搭配掃瞄病患用之軟體或/及硬體，利用病患齒列數位掃瞄檔案設計製造一系列之塑膠矯正器，用以漸進移動牙齒。」｜caveat: The site says it is maintained for Taiwan FDA and is for reference, with FDA notices controlling any difference. Classification scope is device-use description, not clinical-indication or individual-product-lawfulness determination; individual suitability needs a dentist's assessment.
• F15｜confidence: verified｜basis: law (Taiwan Medical Device Management Act Art. 25; curl checked HTTP 200 and statutory block compared 2026-08-06; same anchor KM-DENTAL-46 F23 and KM-DENTAL-38 F27)｜period: current provision｜geo: TW｜span（第 1 項）:「製造、輸入醫療器材，應向中央主管機關申請查驗登記，經核准發給醫療器材許可證後，始得為之。但經中央主管機關公告之品項，其製造、輸入應以登錄方式為之。」｜caveat: Statutory quotation, not legal advice; an individual product's route follows the competent authority's notices.
• F16｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (overview of systematic reviews, PMID 34993617)｜period: searched to 2021-07-15, published 2022; PubMed searched 2026-08-06 with no newer general-effectiveness overview replacing it (newer contemporaneous reviews concern single topics such as BPA release, cytotoxicity, or root resorption)｜geo: universal｜span:「A total of 361 potentially eligible reviews were identified. After excluding the non-relevant/low-quality reviews, 18 systematic reviews were included.」「CAT was found to be effective for mild to moderate malocclusions, and was associated with inferior outcomes when treating severe cases or with achieving specific tooth movements.」「The level of evidence regarding CAT is moderate; hence, further high-quality randomized clinical trials are required.」「Evidence supports use of aligners as an alternate to fixed appliances in patients with mild-to-moderate malocclusion but not in severe cases.」｜caveat: Review-level evidence, rated moderate overall by the authors; not an individual feasibility determination.
• F17｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review/meta-analysis of RCTs, PMID 39947778)｜period: searched to 2024-10, published 2025｜geo: universal｜span:「About 21 RCT studies were selected from a total of 600 records and involved 970 participants.」「Based on the primary outcome, there was no significant difference in the ABO objective grading scores, Little Irregularity Index and PAR scores between the fixed appliances and clear aligner treatments.」「The overall quality of evidence from the included studies was low.」「Both clear aligners and fixed appliances worked well in treating simple malocclusions treated on a nonextraction basis.」「More high-quality studies evaluating clear aligner treatment for treating complex malocclusions are required.」｜caveat: Limited to simple non-extraction malocclusion and low overall evidence quality. F23 gives the clinical-meaning limit for periodontal-index differences.
• F18｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review/meta-analysis, PMID 41127933)｜period: searched to 2025-02, published 2025｜geo: universal｜span:「Clear aligners represent a modern alternative to traditional fixed orthodontic appliances, offering aesthetic and removable treatment options.」「Fifteen trials involving 1084 patients were included.」「No significant differences were found in treatment quality or duration between clear aligners and fixed appliances in non-extraction cases, although sensitivity analyses suggested shorter treatment duration with clear aligners.」「In extraction cases, fixed appliances provided superior treatment quality, attributed to enhanced control of tooth movements.」「However, study heterogeneity and short follow-up durations limited the strength of conclusions.」「Case complexity and patient compliance should guide appliance selection.」｜caveat: Randomised and non-randomised trials included; heterogeneity and short follow-up limit conclusions. Do not rewrite as “extraction means no clear aligners” or “non-extraction is certainly equally good.”
• F19｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review/meta-analysis, PMID 41195763)｜period: searched to 2025-04-19, published 2026｜geo: universal｜span:「Twenty studies (536 aligner patients, 173 fixed appliance patients) were included.」「Meta-analyses revealed significant discrepancies between predicted and achieved movements, including excessive mesial tipping of maxillary first molars (mean difference: -6.08°, 95% CI: -7.89 to -4.26). Under-retraction (-1.93 mm, 95% CI: -2.15 to -1.71), and increased vertical displacement of maxillary incisors. Root divergence and anchorage loss were prevalent.」「Compared to fixed appliances, aligners exhibited inferior root control and occlusal contact scores.」「Clear aligners demonstrate biomechanical limitations in achieving precise root control and bodily movement in extraction cases, necessitating strategic overcorrections and adjunctive mechanics.」｜caveat: Population restricted to premolar-extraction cases aged ≥12 years; primarily retrospective, with moderate overall bias risk. Numbers are predicted-versus-achieved movement differences, not treatment-failure rates, and cannot be extrapolated to non-extraction cases.
• F20｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 42442043)｜period: published online ahead of print in 2026｜geo: universal｜span:「Twenty studies were included. Refinement-related outcomes were heterogeneously defined, including refinement aligners, additional aligners, finishing phases, refinement plans, midcourse correction, and first-refinement scans.」「The evidence suggested that refinement burden may be associated with malocclusion complexity, extraction treatment, interproximal reduction strategies, severe spacing, larger correction sequences, and movement-specific limitations. Rotations, intrusion, vertical correction, transverse expansion, and selected anterior movements showed reduced predictability.」「Remote monitoring appeared to reduce appointment burden but did not consistently reduce refinement need.」「Refinement after the first aligner series should be interpreted as a multifactorial clinical outcome rather than a uniform finishing procedure.」｜caveat: Heterogeneous definitions, outcomes, units, and measurement methods meant no meta-analysis; this is associative evidence (“may be associated”), not causation or a cost-calculation basis.
• F21｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 35057250)｜period: searched to 2020-03, published 2022｜geo: universal｜span:「Five clinical trials were selected and all of them showed a medium risk of bias.」「Literature showed that attachments mostly increase the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with clear aligners, improving anterior root torque, rotation, and mesio-distal (M-D) movement; they are also important to increase posterior anchorage. However, some articles showed contradictory or not statistically significant results.」「Further clinical trials are strongly suggested to clarify the influence of attachments and their number, size, shape, and position on each orthodontic movement.」｜caveat: Only 5 clinical trials, all medium bias risk; some results conflicted or were not significant, and no study assessed posterior buccolingual tipping/expansion. Not an attachment-configuration recommendation.
• F22｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review/meta-analysis, PMID 41440338)｜period: published 2025｜geo: universal｜span:「Ten studies (one RCT, two prospective, and seven retrospective studies) were included.」「In total, 286 patients (1476 incisors) and 289 patients (1487 incisors) in the CA and FA groups were considered, respectively.」「The meta-analysis found that CAs caused significantly less EARR than FAs for all tooth types except for MdL. On a patient basis, the mean difference (MD) in favour of CAs ranged from -0.64 mm (95% CI (confidence interval): -0.90, -0.38 mm) for MxC to -0.26 mm (95% CI: -0.43, -0.09 mm) in MdC.」「Heterogeneity across studies was generally high, except for MdC cases.」「Further evidence-based studies are needed to confirm these results and understand the clinical relevance of such a difference.」｜caveat: One RCT and seven retrospective studies; heterogeneity generally high and clinical significance remains unclear. Do not rewrite as “clear aligners do not cause root resorption” or use as a sole appliance-choice reason; measurement is restricted to four incisor types.
• F23｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analysis, PMID 37174882)｜period: searched to 2023-02-10, published 2023｜geo: universal｜span:「The present umbrella review of four systematic reviews with meta-analysis aimed to assess whether clear aligners are associated with better periodontal conditions compared with fixed appliances in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.」「Differences in the PI, GI, and BOP in the short- and medium-term follow-ups, in the PPD in long-term follow-up, and the gingival recessions in the short-term follow-up were found between subjects with clear aligners and fixed appliances, revealing a slight tendency for clear aligners to be associated with healthier periodontal conditions. However, even if statistically significant, such differences would be negligible in a clinical environment. Therefore, the impact of orthodontic treatment with clear aligners and fixed appliances on periodontal health status should be considered comparable.」｜caveat: The point is the authors' clinical-meaning conclusion: differences are negligible in practice and effects should be considered comparable. Do not quote only the “healthier” half.
• F24｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 38607436)｜period: searched to 2023-06, published 2024; rechecked 2026-08-06 with no update found｜geo: universal｜span:「Out of the 3537 articles initially identified, ten eligible studies were included in this systematic review; six were RCTs.」「Only one study offered extraction-based treatment, while the other nine adopted non-extraction treatments.」「According to the GRADE, there is low evidence that treatment duration in mild to moderate crowding cases with clear aligners is similar to that in fixed orthodontic appliances.」「Meta-analysis was not administered due to high inconsistency.」「Further well-performed RCTs, especially in severe cases, are required.」｜caveat: Mild-to-moderate crowding only; just one extraction study; low certainty and no meta-analysis. Do not generalise as “the two appliances are equally fast.” Same anchor in KM-DENTAL-08, span verbatim.
• F25｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review/meta-analysis, PMID 26926017)｜period: published 2016; PubMed search 2026-08-06 found no update for the same PICO (recent same-topic work compared particular bracket-slot sizes)｜geo: universal｜span:「Twenty-five studies were included after screening: 20 randomized controlled trials and 5 controlled clinical trials.」「The mean treatment duration derived from the 22 included studies involving 1089 participants was 19.9 months (95% confidence interval, 19.58, 20.22 months).」「The mean number of required visits derived from 5 studies was 17.81 (95% confidence interval, 15.47, 20.15 visits).」「Based on prospective studies carried out in university settings, comprehensive orthodontic treatment on average requires less than 2 years to complete.」｜caveat: Measures fixed appliances, not clear aligners; population was prospective university-setting research and the authors state that limit. Not an individual-duration promise or institution-comparison benchmark. Same anchor in KM-DENTAL-08.
• F26｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (Cochrane systematic review, PMID 37219527, CD002283.pub5)｜period: searched to 2022-04-27, published 2023; current version pub5, rechecked 2026-08-06 with no pub6 found｜geo: universal｜span:「Retention is achieved by fitting fixed or removable retainers to provide stability to the teeth while avoiding damage to teeth and gums.」「We included 47 studies, with 4377 participants.」「The evidence is low to very low certainty, so we cannot draw firm conclusions about any one approach to retention over another.」｜caveat: Review excluded clear-aligner-treatment studies, so it addresses retention-stage general questions, not a clear-aligner-specific conclusion. No retainer-wearing-time advice. Same anchor in KM-DENTAL-08.
• F27｜confidence: verified (same anchor reused; not rechecked for this card)｜basis: official_statement (Taiwan NHI Administration medical-device price-comparison two-route query pages; first checked 2026-08-05, retested by KM-DENTAL-08 2026-08-06. Both checks: neither category list contained dental items and visible text contained no “牙”)｜period: status checked 2026-08-05/08-06｜geo: TW｜caveat: Status as checked; the official database may change. This entry only says the site should not be described as a dental-fee verification route; reconfirm before publication.　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫材比價網」]
• F28｜confidence: n/a｜basis: internal_dataset (GSC, not medical evidence)｜period: data window 2025-03 through 2026-08｜geo: TW｜This is a clinic-supplement topic from one site's real search volume; the mount list follows the corresponding km-production-queue.html row with no additions or deletions. Topic-evidence figures remain in draft frontmatter/internal files and are removed from the published visible layer (decision 2026-08-05).
• F29｜no external source｜structural editorial framework, not factual claim｜geo: universal｜The site's explanatory framework for aligning quotations: five parts (assessment/diagnosis, digital workflow, appliance itself, treatment adjustment, retention); sequence for reading schedule items as a quotation; communication advice to match items before total and use written quotation rather than heard numbers; brand-neutral editing; and labelled inference from F14's three phrases (series, designed from scan, stated intended use). Decision 2026-08-05: editorial structure is labelled structural organisation, not “pending verification.”
• F30｜no external source｜evidence-gap and prohibition statement (editorial, not pending)｜geo: universal｜This card provides none of: amounts, price ranges, or “market prices”; opinions on whether an amount is reasonable; brand comparisons/recommendations/endorsements; individual suitability determination; attachment count, interproximal-reduction amount, or retainer-wearing-time advice; legal applicability assessment for any product; or legal opinion on insurance claims or contract terms (they depend on policy and contract terms). Literature findings are population estimates and must not infer an individual's treatment result.

Source list

All retrieved on 2026-08-06. PubMed abstracts were obtained with E-utilities efetch (rettype=abstract) and matched verbatim; esummary pubtype was checked one by one for retraction (all 11 had no Retracted Publication tag and no WITHDRAWN title). Laws were retrieved from the National Laws and Regulations Database by curl (HTTP 200) and statutory blocks compared verbatim. The Taipei fee page was loaded in ego-browser; its attachment was downloaded independently by curl and extracted with pdftotext. The medical-device database was loaded in ego-browser and searched/read field by field.

• S1 Yassir YA, Nabbat SA, McIntyre GT, Bearn DR. Clinical effectiveness of clear aligner treatment compared to fixed appliance treatment: an overview of systematic reviews. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(3):2353-2370. PMID 34993617. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34993617
• S2 Baneshi M, O'Malley L, El-Angbawi A, Thiruvenkatachari B. Effectiveness of clear orthodontic aligners in correcting malocclusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2025;25(1):102081. PMID 39947778. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39947778
• S3 Alhafi ZM, Hajeer MY, Alam MK, Jaber ST. Quality and stability of orthodontic treatment outcomes with clear aligners versus fixed appliances: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2025;47(6):cjaf091. PMID 41127933. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41127933
• S4 Abu Arqub S, Chheda H, Crumpton J, Yang X, Farha P, Upadhyay M. Clear aligners in extraction-based orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2026;29(1):12-29. PMID 41195763. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41195763
• S5 Nogueira Matos K, Belline da Silva T, Matos de Faria Almeida L, de Faria Almeida M, Dos Santos Dantas Guimarães HH. Clinical, biomechanical, and digital factors associated with refinement after the first series of clear aligners: a systematic review. Int Orthod. 2026;24(4):101211. PMID 42442043. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42442043
• S6 Nucera R, Dolci C, Bellocchio AM, et al. Effects of composite attachments on orthodontic clear aligners therapy: a systematic review. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(2):533. PMID 35057250. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35057250
• S7 Darvizeh A, González Sánchez JA, Doria Jaureguizar G, et al. External apical root resorption following orthodontic treatment with clear aligners versus fixed appliances: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent J (Basel). 2025;13(12):580. PMID 41440338. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41440338
• S8 Di Spirito F, D'Ambrosio F, Cannatà D, D'Antò V, Giordano F, Martina S. Impact of clear aligners versus fixed appliances on periodontal status of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(9):1340. PMID 37174882. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37174882
• S9 Alhamwi AM, Burhan AS, Idris MI, Nawaya FR. Duration of orthodontic treatment with clear aligners versus fixed appliances in crowding cases: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2024;28(5):249. PMID 38607436. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38607436
• S10 Tsichlaki A, Chin SY, Pandis N, Fleming PS. How long does treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances last? A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149(3):308-18. PMID 26926017. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26926017
• S11 Martin C, Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, et al. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;5(5):CD002283. PMID 37219527. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37219527
• S12 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Art. 21. law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=21
• S13 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Art. 22. law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=22
• S14 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Art. 81. law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=81
• S15 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Art. 87. law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0020021 flno=87
• S16 National Health Insurance Act, Art. 51. law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0060001 flno=51
• S17 Medical Device Management Act, Art. 25. law.moj.gov.tw pcode=L0030106 flno=25
• S18 Taipei Department of Health fee schedule: “臺北市醫療機構牙科收費標準表” (approved 1090117). health.gov.taipei fee page
• S19 Taipei City Medical Institution Dental Fee Schedule (approved version 1090117), PDF attachment linked from S18. www-ws.gov.taipei download
• S20 Medical Device Classification Database (commissioned and maintained by Taiwan FDA). mdlicense.itri.org.tw classification search
• S21 Taiwan NHI Administration “medical-device price-comparison site,” self-pay difference and fee-comparison pages. INAE2011S01, INAE2012S01　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫材比價網」]
• S22 Internal data: this topic's row in the `km-production-queue.html` clinic-supplement table (complete GSC data from 14 clinic sites; window 2025-03 to 2026-08), one site and row-by-row auditable. Not medical evidence; only topic-selection and mount basis.
• S23 Editorial framework (no external source): the five-part structure, checklist, and neutral-layer rules; see F29 and F30.

Internal citation chain

• Sibling canonical and division of work (read first): How much do “dental braces” cost? First distinguish orthodontic braces from a prosthetic crown (KM-DENTAL-08, draft). #08 handles the two meanings of “dental braces,” shared cost structure, fixed-appliance white-spot/root-resorption risks, and general cost reading. This card handles clear aligners' schedule structure, official difficulty criteria, meaning of separate material fees, digital-workflow items, and why refinement/attachments increase case variation. Shared topics (F24/F25 duration, F26 retention, NHI Act Art. 51 F5, Taiwan Medical Care Act Arts. 21/22/81) are briefly cited and linked, not rewritten; shared English spans and statute text are identical.
• Same approved-schedule method for a quotation: How much is one all-ceramic crown? (KM-DENTAL-44, draft). It applies the same Taipei schedule to prosthodontic items; this card applies it to orthodontics. Their PDF hashes were recorded as identical on the same day.
• Same Taiwan Medical Device Management Act Art. 25 anchor: What should I do if a filling falls out? (KM-DENTAL-46, draft) and A crown/dental brace fell off—can I glue it back myself? (KM-DENTAL-38, draft). All three cards use the same provision and verbatim span.