歯科ブリッジは後悔する？何本までできる？｜證據鏈

歯科ブリッジは後悔する？何本までできる？｜證據鏈

F-Units（事実単位帳）

各項目は出典、confidence、basis、period、geo、caveat を示します。basis の階層は law > official_statement > clinical_guideline > peer_reviewed > textbook です。

• F1｜confidence: verified｜basis: internal_dataset (S28; not a medical claim)｜period: 2025-03 to 2026-08 GSC retention window｜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: Impressions are asset-level figures, not deduplicated traffic. The mounted list follows the #45 field of the queue page; no additions or deletions. The entire entry is omitted in the publication conversion (2026-08-05 decision that internal data do not enter the visible layer).
• F2｜confidence: n/a｜basis: structural compilation (editorial framework, S29; not a factual claim)｜geo: universal｜The following are explanatory structures defined by this site's editors, not external facts: ① terminology mapping for the “three bridge types” ② the policy of neither citing nor denying forum posts, instead mapping them to literature categories ③ classification and ordering of four types of regret ④ the canonical boundaries between this card and the resin-bonded bridge card (KM-DENTAL-22), missing-tooth options card (KM-DENTAL-35), and fixed-denture cost card (KM-DENTAL-03) ⑤ the care-communication advice to compare quotations with written itemisation and county/city approved standards ⑥ the editorial rule against outcome promises such as “choose the right dentist and you will not regret it.”
• F3｜confidence: n/a｜basis: evidence-gap statement (editorial; not pending verification)｜geo: universal｜This search found no citable evidence; this card therefore does not state: ① any amount, range, or market price ② an individual prediction of bridge service life ③ Taiwan-local bridge survival or complication statistics ④ a numerical upper limit on bridge tooth count ⑤ a systematic-review conclusion on the effect of conventional sectioning removal on abutment teeth (this PubMed search combined crown removal／sectioning／retrievability and related terms and returned 0 qualifying records) ⑥ the contents or force of warranty terms (a contractual matter rather than a medical question; this site gives no legal opinion).
• F4｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review・meta-analysis, PMID 41650383)｜period: searched 2014-01 to 2024-12; published online ahead of print 2026-02-06 = the included paper with the later search date｜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: Online ahead of print; no final volume, issue, or pages yet. Seventeen studies from existing systematic reviews were included to cover earlier periods. The denominator of 71.0% is restorations and cannot be subtracted from F6's 15.7% (whose denominator is patients). Version/timeliness check (2026-08-06): a tooth-supported FDP＋survival＋systematic review search of 2018–2026 publication dates found this to be the latest publication date (2026-02) and a directly relevant review of multiple-unit tooth-supported FDPs.
• F5｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review・meta-analysis, PMID 15533126)｜period: searched 1966 to 2004-03; published 2004｜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: The abstract does not define “success” verbatim (it only says survival was analysed by in situ and intact failure risks); this card therefore does not read 71.1% as “completely complication-free”—that definition occurs in the related cantilever review (F7), which is a different study and must not be borrowed across papers. This is older; its 5-year data are updated by F4 (2026). But F4 reports only 5 years, so this paper and F6 remain the citable sources for 10-year estimates (2026-08-06 search for 10-year survival tooth-supported FDP systematic review: 3 records returned, with no newer 10-year pooled estimate). Included studies were mainly cohort studies and heterogeneity was high.
• F6｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review・meta-analysis, PMID 17594374)｜period: studies with mean follow-up ≥5 years; published 2007 (same anchor as F11 in this site's card #22)｜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: The denominator for 15.7% is patients (the original sentence compares it with 38.7% of patients with implant-supported FDPs), not restorations, and is not on the same scale as F4's 71.0%. Here, conventional tooth-supported FDP means a conventional fixed bridge that reduces neighbouring teeth for full-crown abutments; it is not the same procedure as a resin-bonded bridge (KM-DENTAL-22), and the two sets of figures must not be applied to one another.
• F7｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review・meta-analysis, PMID 15533127)｜period: studies with mean follow-up ≥5 years; published 2004｜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: The population is limited to cantilever (single-ended support) FDPs, not conventional bridges with abutments at both ends. This card does not use its 32.6% figure in the conventional-bridge body section; it is in the ledger only to mark the difference in denominator/definition and avoid extrapolating across designs.
• F8｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 42008751)｜period: literature searched 2012–2023; published 2026 (same anchor as F7 in this site's card #37)｜geo: universal｜span: 「Crown preparation leads to irreversible dental tissue loss, which affects long-term restoration success.」｜caveat: This review compares preservation of tooth structure in vertical and horizontal preparation techniques. This card uses only its statement that crown preparation causes irreversible tooth-structure loss and cites no conclusion about which preparation technique is superior.
• F9｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed (in-vitro weight-analysis study, not clinical, PMID 12186346)｜period: published 2002｜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: In-vitro weight analysis of resin model teeth, not intraoral patient measurement, with 10 teeth per group. Values are proportions of tooth-structure removal, not treatment-effectiveness or prognosis measures; the body states this limitation.
• F10｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed (in-vitro weight-analysis study, not clinical, PMID 12070513)｜period: published 2002｜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: As for F9, this is in-vitro model measurement. Its subjects are anterior teeth and it measures the weight proportion of coronal tooth structure.

• F11｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review・meta-analysis; observational studies, PMID 34516686)｜period: searched to 2021-01; published 2022 (same anchor as this site's cards #11 and #37)｜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: Only observational studies were included and heterogeneity was high. Success refers to pulpal and periapical status, not survival of the bridge itself. The population is vital abutment teeth for fixed prostheses, including single crowns and bridges.
• F12｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 37455556)｜period: searched to 2022-10; published 2024｜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: Observational data; the authors state that the number of studies is limited and clinical confounders are uncontrolled. This is association, not causation, as stated in the body. This card does not use the single-crown subgroup data (within KM-DENTAL-11's scope).
• F13｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed (narrative review, PMID 28429481)｜period: published 2017｜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: Narrative review, not a meta-analysis, with no pooled estimate. This card uses only its planning-factor list and pontic-hygiene statements, not a quantitative conclusion.
• F14｜confidence: high｜basis: clinical_guideline (narrative review commissioned by the 2017 World Workshop, PMID 29926939)｜period: published 2018 (same anchor as this site's cards #11, #23, and #37)｜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: Narrative review, not a meta-analysis.
• F15｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review・meta-analysis, PMID 17594371)｜period: searched 1966 to 2006-09; published 2007｜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 notes an erratum for this article (Erratum in Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Mar;19(3):326-8); the erratum text could not be retrieved this time and should be checked alongside any citation. Only 6 studies were included and confidence intervals are very wide (for example, endodontic complications 62.6 to 98.9). The population is abutment teeth with severely reduced but healthy periodontal support that received maintenance; it must not be extrapolated to untreated active periodontitis. Version/timeliness check (2026-08-06): a reduced periodontal support＋FDP＋systematic review search of 2015–2026 publication dates returned 0 records; no updated version was found.
• F16｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed (retrospective clinical study, PMID 9183035)｜period: published 1997｜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: Single institution, older study, and not a systematic review. The abstract does not state the relationship between the “56 failed bridges” and the 156 bridges above (whether the former are a subset of the latter), so this card does not infer it. This entry is used only to show that the rule is tested by abutment periodontal-ligament area and that not meeting it does not necessarily fail as abutment overload; it is not used as an effectiveness or design recommendation.
• F17｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed (multicentre retrospective chart study, PMID 7616341)｜period: published 1995｜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: Retrospective charts, older era, and a single country's general-practice population. “No effect of length” is a finding within this sample, not a universal conclusion. This paper and F18 observe long spans in different directions; this card presents both without selecting one.
• F18｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed (retrospective clinical analysis, PMID 25262674)｜period: published 2015｜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: Only 36 patients and 41 FDPs. The abstract does not say whether two or three-or-more abutments did better, so this card does not infer a direction. The very low maintenance attendance (13.8%) is a characteristic of this population and must accompany interpretation of the figures.
• F19｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed (one-page commentary, no PubMed abstract, PMID 22942148)｜period: published 2012｜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: Only the position expressed by the title is cited; its internal argument is not. This entry is not a basis for a clinical number or recommendation; it only records that the literature openly questioned the evidence basis for this rule.
• F20｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed (retrospective cohort study, PMID 40960697)｜period: mean observation 4.27 years; published 2025-09-17｜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: The population is implant-supported and tooth-implant mixed-supported FDPs, not purely tooth-supported bridges; the conclusion must not be directly applied to conventional bridges, as stated in the body. It is single-centre retrospective data with a mean observation of only 4.27 years; lack of statistical significance is not absence of difference.

• F21｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed (retrospective follow-up study, PMID 21716968)｜period: mean follow-up 17.7 years; published 2011｜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: Single centre; restorations were made by dental students. Only about half of the original population returned for examination, creating selective follow-up bias, as stated in the body. It is not a systematic review and is lower-level evidence than F4, F5, and F6.
• F22｜confidence: medium｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review・meta-analysis, PMID 39369882)｜period: searched to 2024-06; published 2024-12｜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: The meta-analysis included only 7 randomised controlled trials, totalling 180 zirconia and 206 metal-ceramic FDPs. Its zirconia group was mainly bilaminar (veneered); its estimated direction differs from F4's for veneered zirconia, so this card presents both without choosing one. Relative risk compares materials; it is not an absolute incidence.
• F23｜confidence: low｜basis: peer_reviewed (retrospective clinical analysis, PMID 38096248)｜period: published 2023-12-14｜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 retrospective cases, with only 3 fixed bridges; no control group and no random allocation. Time figures (veneers 2.25±0.61, single crowns 6.89±8.07, and FDPs 25±10 minutes per abutment) are descriptive statistics for this sample; the single-crown standard deviation exceeds the mean, showing very large case variation. This card recommends no device or technique and does not cite its “safe and effective” wording as a treatment-effectiveness claim.
• F24｜confidence: verified (Taiwan law database loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; wording matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S21)｜period: current provision｜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: Statutory quotation, not legal advice. Individual coverage follows current National Health Insurance Administration announcements; this card makes no coverage determination.
• F25｜confidence: verified (loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; wording matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S22)｜period: current provision｜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: Statutory quotation, not legal advice.
• F26｜confidence: verified (loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; wording matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S23)｜period: current provision｜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: Statutory quotation, not legal advice. This card lists no amounts.
• F27｜confidence: verified (loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; wording matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S24)｜period: current provision｜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: Statutory quotation, not legal advice.
• F28｜confidence: verified (loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; wording matched verbatim)｜basis: law (S25)｜period: current provision｜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: This card's health-education positioning relies on this article. Statutory quotation, not legal advice.
• F29｜confidence: verified (OP used ego-browser on 2026-08-05 to inspect each category in both query tracks; this card reuses the same anchor without re-testing)｜basis: official_statement (S26)｜period: 2026-08-05 observed current state｜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: Reuse of another person's observed verification record; this card did not remeasure it. Its only purpose is to exclude an incorrect verification channel, not to make any cost statement.
• F30｜confidence: verified (this card loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06 and read the page title and file list verbatim; the page shows data updated 115-07-15)｜basis: official_statement (S27)｜period: 1090117 approved version｜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: A single county/city example; other counties and cities publish their own notices. The dataset is not an individual clinic's actual charge, which still requires that clinic's written itemisation. This card cites no amount in it.

このサービスを提供する医療機関の探し方

本サイトは医療機関の一覧を掲載せず、いかなる医療機関の推薦、評価、比較も行いません。

このサービスを提供する歯科医院を探すときは、次の公的な検索窓口をご自身でお使いください。

主管機関が維持しているため、どのような一覧よりも新しい情報です。

>

- 台湾衛生福利部の「医事機構検索」：県市・郷鎮と診療科（歯科）で、

開業登録を完了した医療機関を検索できます。結果には機関名、住所、登録診療科が表示されます。

「その医院が適法に登録されているか」を確認する最初の窓口です。

- 台湾中央健康保険署の「特約医事機構検索」：その医院が全民健康保険の特約機関かどうかを確認できます。

どの項目が保険給付で、どの項目が自費かに関わり、受け取る費用説明の内容に直結します。

>

いずれも各主管機関の公式サイト上にあり、「医事機構検索」「特約医療機関検索」で見つかります。

本サイトは URL を転載しません。URL は変わるため、主管機関が現時点で公示している入口をご利用ください。

>

緊急時は一覧を調べることに時間を使わないでください。 呼吸、嚥下、発話に影響がある場合、

または腫脹が広がっている場合は、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。

コンプライアンス注記

本記事は台湾医療法第 87 条にいう衛生教育情報です [F28]。医療広告ではなく、特定の医療機関を推薦せず、いかなる金額や価格帯も提示しません。固定性ブリッジ治療は支台歯の不可逆的な歯質切削を伴い、医療上のリスクと禁忌があります。支台歯のう蝕、歯髄の失活、維持力の喪失、陶材の破折、フレームまたは支台歯の破折、ポンティック周囲粘膜の炎症、歯肉退縮などが生じることがあります。実際の治療方法と効果には個人差があり、歯科医師の評価が必要です。本カードが整理した判断要素は歯科医師との対話に用いるためのものであり、臨床診断に代わるものではありません。また本記事はいかなる医療機関の処置についても評価せず、保険金支払いや契約条項に関する法的見解も提供しません。これらは加入している保険証券および契約条項によります。

出典一覧

• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim; same anchor as 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 (cantilever). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(6):667-76. PMID 15533127. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15533127 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim; same anchor as 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim; same anchor as KM-DENTAL-11 and 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim; same anchor as KM-DENTAL-11, 23, and 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim; PubMed notes Erratum in Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(3):326-8, whose text could not be retrieved)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; PubMed has no abstract; only the title was retrievable verbatim and this card does not cite its text)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• 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 (accessed 2026-08-06; efetch abstract matched verbatim)
• S21 Taiwan National Health Insurance Act, Article 51. Law & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; Paragraph 11 matched verbatim)
• S22 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 21. Official English text (loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; wording matched verbatim)
• S23 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 22. Official English text (loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; wording matched verbatim)
• S24 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 81. Official English text (loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; wording matched verbatim)
• S25 Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 87. Official English text (loaded with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; two passages matched verbatim)
• S26 Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration medical-device price-comparison site's item categories in two query tracks (fact verified across cards; same anchor). info.nhi.gov.tw INAE2000/INAE2010S01 (tested with ego-browser by KM-DENTAL-03 on 2026-08-05 and rechecked by OP; record in km-compliance/VERIFIED-FACTS.md; this card did not repeat the test)
• S27 Taipei City Department of Health fee standard: “Taipei City Medical Institution Dental Fee Standard Table” (1090117 approved). health.gov.taipei fee-standard page (this card loaded it with ego-browser on 2026-08-06; the page title and associated file name matched verbatim; page shows data updated 115-07-15)
• S28 Internal data: appendix for item 45 of `analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` (full GSC data for 14 clinic sites; data window 2025-03–2026-08), 4 queries across 3 sites, item-by-item auditable. Not a medical fact basis; only topic-selection support and omitted from the visible layer at publication.
• S29 Editorial framework (no external source): this card's three bridge-type branches, four regret-type classifications, canonical boundary with related cards, forum-post handling, and no-outcome-promise rule; see F2 and F3.

内部引用チェーン

• Same-family canonical card (procedure): What is a resin-bonded (Maryland) bridge, and who is it for? (KM-DENTAL-22, draft). Canonical boundary between the two cards: the other card covers comparison of single- and double-wing resin-bonded bridge designs, their survival and debonding rates, favourable and unfavourable conditions, and the name's origin. This card covers irreversible preparation in conventional fixed bridges, abutment complications, pontic cleaning, evidence on span and abutment count, and removal. The cards share the PMID 17594374 literature anchor (this card's F6 = that card's F11), and the English span is verbatim identical. That paper's conventional tooth-supported FDP and resin-bonded bridge are different procedures; their figures must not be applied to one another.
• Same-family canonical card (option comparison): Is an implant necessary after a missing tooth? What if I cannot afford replacement? (KM-DENTAL-35, draft). If you are still deciding whether to replace the tooth and by which option, start there: the conditions and trade-offs for leaving it, removable denture, bridge, and implant are that card's canonical content. This card does not repeat them and assumes a conventional fixed bridge has already been proposed.
• Cost canonical card: How much does a fixed dental prosthesis cost per tooth? (KM-DENTAL-03, draft). That card covers how a quotation is itemised, checked line by line, and verified. This card only describes system positioning (private-pay side, county/city approval, receipt) and states no amount.
• Same-type reputation cards: Will I regret an implant? Are patients' painful experiences real? (KM-DENTAL-07, draft) and Will I regret a zirconia crown? What are its drawbacks? (KM-DENTAL-37, draft). All three use the same policy—neither cite nor deny posts, but map them to literature categories—for different subjects: implants, a single zirconia crown, and conventional fixed bridges.
• Upstream decision card: Can I leave a molar missing after extraction, and what happens? (KM-DENTAL-34, draft). If your question is really whether this tooth needs replacement at all, the criteria are in that card. This card begins after replacement has been chosen and a bridge proposed.