How long does it take for an extraction socket to heal?｜證據鏈

How long does it take for an extraction socket to heal?｜證據鏈

F-Units (fact ledger)

• F1｜Topic-selection basis = full GSC reconciliation across 14 clinic sites: 9 queries, including `拔牙傷口癒合時間`, `拔牙的洞多久癒合`, `拔智齒的洞多久癒合`, `拔牙後的洞`, `拔智齒的洞會癒合嗎`, `拔牙傷口癒合過程`, `拔牙傷口多久癒合`, and `拔智齒傷口癒合時間`, totaled 378,675 impressions across 2 sites ｜source #19｜confidence=high｜basis=internal_dataset｜period=GSC retention window (from 2025-03-22)｜geo: TW｜caveat: impressions are property-level figures, not deduplicated traffic; this is internal data, not a medical claim.
• F2 [structural compilation]｜The four-stage framework—“blood-clot phase / symptom plateau and resolution / granulation and woven-bone phase / mineralization and contour remodelling”—is this site's communication structure compiled from F3 to F8 and F19｜source #20｜confidence=n/a｜basis=editorial_framework｜period=2026-08-05｜geo: universal｜caveat: not a diagnostic tool or clinical guideline; must not be labeled a claim pending verification.
• F3｜Existing studies of extraction-wound repair in humans have important limitations and have failed to evaluate tissue changes occurring in every compartment of hard-tissue defects｜source #1｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 18498382, human histology study)｜period=2008｜geo: universal｜span:「The available studies on extraction wound repair in humans are affected by significant limitations and have failed to evaluate tissue alterations occurring in all compartments of the hard tissue defect」｜caveat: this is the study introduction's appraisal of prior literature; this card cites it as the basis for saying no day-by-day chart exists.
• F4｜Twenty-seven human extraction-socket biopsies represented the early (2 to 4 weeks, n=10), intermediate (6 to 8 weeks, n=6), and late (12 to 24 weeks, n=11) healing phases; total observation was 6 months｜source #1｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 18498382)｜period=2008｜geo: universal｜span:「Twenty-seven biopsies, representative of the early (2-4 weeks, n=10), intermediate (6-8 weeks, n=6), and late phase (12-24 weeks, n=11) of healing, were collected and analysed」｜caveat: biopsy sampling times define the phases; they are not “healing-complete times.” The sample is small, and the abstract does not state tooth sites; do not extrapolate them as third-molar-specific data.
• F5｜Granulation tissue present in large amounts early was replaced by provisional matrix and woven bone between the early and intermediate phases; vascular-structure and macrophage density slowly fell over time from 2 to 4 weeks; osteoblasts peaked at 6 to 8 weeks and then stayed broadly stable｜source #1｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 18498382)｜period=2008｜geo: universal｜span:「Granulation tissue that was present in comparatively large amounts in the early healing phase of socket healing, was in the interval between the early and intermediate observation phase replaced with provisional matrix and woven bone. The density of vascular structures and macrophages slowly decreased from 2 to 4 weeks over time. The presence of osteoblasts peaked at 6-8 weeks and remained almost stable thereafter」｜caveat: semiquantitative histological observation, 27 samples; it describes changing tissue components, not a clinically visible time of “socket closure.”
• F6｜Hard-tissue formation in human extraction sockets has great individual variability. Provisional connective tissue consistently forms in the first weeks, but the interval for mineralized-bone deposition is much less predictable｜source #1｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 18498382)｜period=2008｜geo: universal｜span:「The present findings demonstrated that great variability exists in man with respect to hard tissue formation within extraction sockets. Thus, whereas a provisional connective tissue consistently forms within the first weeks of healing, the interval during which mineralized bone is laid down is much less predictable」｜caveat: this card must not derive a promise of any number of healing days from this; “first weeks” translates the source wording, not a precise day count.
• F7｜Systematic review (20 included studies): at 6 months, horizontal reduction of 3.79 ± 0.23 mm exceeded vertical reduction (1.24 ± 0.11 mm buccal, 0.84 ± 0.62 mm mesial, 0.80 ± 0.71 mm distal); vertical percentage dimensional change was 11% to 22% at 6 months; horizontal percentage dimensional change was 32% at 3 months and 29% to 63% at 6 to 7 months; surgical studies further showed rapid reduction in the first 3 to 6 months followed by slower reduction｜source #2｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 22211303, systematic review, searched MEDLINE and CENTRAL)｜period=2012｜geo: universal｜span:「In human hard tissue, horizontal dimensional reduction (3.79 ± 0.23 mm) was more than vertical reduction (1.24 ± 0.11 mm on buccal, 0.84 ± 0.62 mm on mesial and 0.80 ± 0.71 mm on distal sites) at 6 months. Percentage vertical dimensional change was 11-22% at 6 months. Percentage horizontal dimensional change was 32% at 3 months, and 29-63% at 6-7 months」「These studies demonstrated rapid reductions in the first 3-6 months that was followed by gradual reductions in dimensions thereafter」｜caveat: weighted averages and percentages are study-level summaries, not individual predictions; included studies were limited to undisturbed, naturally healing sockets.
• F8｜A prospective study of 46 patients after premolar or molar extraction, followed for 12 months with study casts and linear radiographic analyses, found that major extraction-site changes occurred within 1 year after extraction｜source #3｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 12956475, prospective clinical and radiographic study)｜period=2003｜geo: universal｜span:「The tissue changes after removal of a premolar or molar in 46 patients were evaluated in a 12-month period by means of measurements on study casts, linear radiographic analyses, and subtraction radiography. The results demonstrated that major changes of an extraction site occurred during 1 year after tooth extraction」｜caveat: the PubMed abstract does not provide bone-fill or width-reduction figures; this card therefore does not cite any quantitative figure from this study, only its conclusion that major change occurs within 1 year.
• F9｜Dry socket is an extraction complication more often involving mandibular molars; it is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3 days after surgery, with or without halitosis, a socket partly or completely without a blood clot, and increased postoperative visits｜source #4｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 36156769, Cochrane systematic review, 49 trials, 6,771 participants)｜period=2022 (searched to 2021-09-28)｜geo: universal｜span:「Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3 days postoperatively with or without halitosis, a socket that may be partially or totally devoid of a blood clot, and increased postoperative visits」｜caveat: background-description paragraph in the review, a consensus-style clinical definition; not a self-diagnosis tool.
• F10｜Dry socket is partial or total loss of the post-extraction clot, causing severe pain that usually begins 1 to 5 days after surgery, with exposed alveolar bone, necrotic debris, halitosis, and tenderness on examination; meta-analysis found smokers had more than threefold higher odds, with pooled incidence about 13.2% in smokers and 3.8% in non-smokers｜source #5｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 35877395, systematic review, 11 included studies)｜period=2022 (searched to 2022-03)｜geo: universal｜span:「It is the partial or total loss of the post-extraction blood clot, resulting in severe pain that usually starts one to five days postoperatively, with clinical evidence of exposed alveolar bone, necrotic debris, halitosis, and tenderness on examination」「Based on a meta-analysis, tobacco smokers had a more than three-fold increase in the odds of dry socket after tooth extraction. Overall, the combined incidence of dry socket in smokers was found to be about 13.2% and in non-smokers about 3.8%」｜caveat: the authors report high heterogeneity among included studies (different tooth sites and age groups); pooled observational evidence shows association, not causation.
• F11｜Dry-socket prevalence ranges from 1% to 5% in routine extraction and upwards of 30% in surgically extracted third molars｜source #4｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 36156769, Cochrane systematic review)｜period=2022｜geo: universal｜span:「The prevalence of dry socket varies from 1% to 5% in routine dental extractions to upwards of 30% in surgically extracted third molars」｜caveat: this is a background parameter range used by the review to calculate NNT, not a pooled estimate produced by the review itself; it must not be written as “literature proves the dry-socket rate of routine extraction is 1% to 5%.”
• F12｜Meta-analysis included 28 studies and 41,859 impacted mandibular third-molar extractions; estimated overall dry-socket prevalence was 6.7% (95% confidence interval 4.6% to 9.1%), with considerable between-study heterogeneity｜source #6｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 38432484, systematic review and meta-analysis)｜period=2024｜geo: universal｜span:「Our meta-analysis included twenty-eight eligible studies, encompassing a total of 41,859 impacted mandibular third molar extractions. The overall prevalence of dry socket (DS) following impacted mandibular third molar extractions was estimated at 6.7 % (95 % CI 4.6-9.1 %), indicating considerable heterogeneity among the studies」｜caveat: limited to impacted mandibular third molars; heterogeneity was large and meta-regression did not identify its source; population prevalence, not personal risk.
• F13｜Cochrane systematic review (49 trials, 6,771 participants): compared with placebo, 0.12% and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses before and 24 hours after extraction substantially reduced dry-socket risk (odds ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.58; 6 trials, 1,547 participants; moderate certainty); 0.2% chlorhexidine gel placed in the socket after extraction reduced odds by 58% (odds ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; 7 trials, 753 participants; moderate certainty); there is also evidence associating 0.12% and 0.2% mouthrinses with minor adverse reactions including altered taste, tooth staining, and stomatitis｜source #4｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 36156769)｜period=2022｜geo: universal｜span:「rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinses (0.12% and 0.2% concentrations) both before and 24 hours after extraction(s) substantially reduced the risk of developing dry socket with an OR of 0.38」「placing chlorhexidine gel intrasocket after extractions reduced the odds of developing a dry socket by 58% with an OR of 0.44」「some evidence for the association of minor adverse reactions with use of 0.12%, 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses (alteration in taste, staining of teeth, stomatitis)」｜caveat: except for 5 studies, every included participant had third-molar extraction, usually performed by oral surgeons; this is within clinician prescribing, and the card recommends no product, concentration, or brand.
• F14｜Cochrane treatment evidence: two studies with 80 participants showed old-formulation Alvogyl was better than zinc oxide eugenol for pain at day 7 (mean difference -1.40, 95% CI -1.75 to -1.04), which authors rated very-low-certainty evidence; each of 9 other dry-socket treatment interventions had a single study, leaving insufficient evidence to determine effect｜source #4｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 36156769)｜period=2022｜geo: universal｜span:「Two studies, with 80 participants, showed that Alvogyl (old formulation) is more effective than zinc oxide eugenol at reducing pain at day 7 (mean difference (MD) -1.40, 95% CI -1.75 to -1.04; P < 0.00001; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence)」「A further nine interventions for the treatment of dry socket were evaluated in single studies, providing insufficient evidence to determine their effects」｜caveat: very low certainty; this card cites the direction that treatment evidence is insufficient and makes no treatment recommendation.
• F27｜Systematic review and meta-analysis: after extraction, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in 3.2% of people treated with antiresorptive drugs for cancer, significantly more than 0.15% of people taking oral antiresorptives for osteoporosis; adjusted extraction protocols significantly reduced osteonecrosis development｜source #14｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 26362756, systematic review and meta-analysis)｜period=2015｜geo: universal｜span:「The risk of MRONJ after dental extraction was significantly higher in patients treated with ARD for oncological reasons (3.2%) than in those treated with per os ARD for OP (0.15%)」「Dental extraction performed with adjusted extraction protocols decreased significantly MRONJ development」｜caveat: population-level incidence, not individual probability; cited as the basis for disclosing medication history to a dentist, not for advising any medication stop or use.
• F15｜Cochrane systematic review (23 trials, about 3,206 participants): prophylactic antibiotics may lower dry-socket risk by 34% after impacted-wisdom-tooth extraction (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; 13 studies, 1,882 participants; low certainty), meaning 46 people need medication to prevent 1 case; infectious complications may be reduced by about 66% (risk ratio 0.34; 12 studies, 1,728 participants; low certainty), meaning 19 people need medication to prevent 1 case; because antimicrobial-resistant bacteria are increasingly prevalent, authors say whether and when to prescribe must be assessed individually｜source #7｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 33624847, Cochrane systematic review)｜period=2021 (searched to 2020-04-16)｜geo: universal｜span:「Antibiotics may also reduce the risk of dry socket by 34% (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; 1882 participants; 13 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 46 people (95% CI 29 to 62) need to take antibiotics to prevent one case of dry socket following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth」「clinicians should evaluate if and when to prescribe prophylactic antibiotic therapy before a dental extraction for each patient on the basis of the patient's clinical conditions」｜caveat: 21 of 23 studies included only healthy people having impacted-third-molar extraction; authors explicitly say results may not generalize to every extraction patient; this card gives no advice on any prescription medicine.
• F16｜Evidence-based dentistry commentary on F10's systematic review: 11 studies from 10 countries included 10,195 patients (3,007 smokers and 7,188 non-smokers); 9 were rated good quality and 2 intermediate; all included studies were level three or four on a five-level evidence scale｜source #8｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 37814003, structured Evidence-Based Dentistry commentary)｜period=2023｜geo: universal｜span:「Eleven studies from ten different countries representing a total of 10,195 patients (3007 smokers and 7188 non-smokers) were included in the final analysis. Nine studies were classified as having "good" quality and two as "intermediate," while all of the studies have the third or fourth level of evidence」｜caveat: a commentary on another systematic review, not original research; cited for sample composition and evidence-level assessment, to mark the upper limit of F10's evidence strength.
• F17｜A 2002 critical review aimed to harmonize descriptive definitions of dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and review its aetiology and pathogenesis; it did not perform a meta-analysis of data｜source #9｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 12190139, critical review)｜period=2002｜geo: universal｜span:「The objective of this article is to harmonize descriptive definitions for the condition known as alveolar osteitis and to critically review and discuss the aetiology and pathogenesis of alveolar osteitis」「A meta-analysis of data was not done」｜caveat: cited as the basis for saying definitions need harmonization and diagnosis requires clinical examination; it cites none of its treatment recommendations; publication is older.
• F18｜Systematic review and meta-analysis (8 randomized studies): warm saltwater mouth bathing and other antimicrobial rinses did not differ significantly in dry-socket incidence (P value greater than 0.05); authors said most included studies had high risk of bias and more research is needed｜source #10｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 34509363, systematic review and meta-analysis)｜period=2021 (searched to 2020-08-30)｜geo: universal｜span:「This review found no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the incidence of alveolar osteitis between WSMB and other antimicrobial rinses」「more studies are needed to validate these findings, as most of the studies reviewed had a high level of bias」｜caveat: only 8 included studies and high risk of bias; “no significant difference” does not mean equivalence, nor recommendation for or against any rinsing method.
• F19｜Patient-reported study of 339 patients and five types of dentoalveolar surgery (10 cm visual analogue scale, daily in postoperative week 1 and on day 14): in the first 3 healing days flap-based surgical extraction had higher total bleeding and pain area-under-the-curve (mean bleeding 5.6, mean pain 7.5); two-week overall experience showed symptoms subsided quickly in all groups and scores approached zero; complication proportions in postoperative week 1 were 4.8% for simple extraction and 1.5% for flap-based surgical extraction｜source #11｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 26970296, comparative clinical study, two centres in Hong Kong and Nanjing)｜period=2017｜geo: universal｜span:「For the first 3 days of healing, area-under-the-curve (AUC) analyses showed that transalveolar extraction (TE) resulted in significantly higher overall bleeding and pain (AUC: Bleeding Mean = 5.6, Pain Mean = 7.5)」「Two-week overall experience showed the symptoms quickly subsided for all groups」「The VAS scores for all POAs parameters were generally low and decreased to nearly zero over the study period」｜caveat: non-randomized consecutive recruitment at two centres; population-level trajectory, not inevitable for an individual; shared anchor with card #20 F5; group direction for complication proportion conflicts with subjective experience (TE had a lower proportion), so this card makes no between-group claim from that proportion.
• F20｜Systematic review (15 included studies): interrupting antithrombotics because of fear of bleeding or after postoperative bleeding increases thromboembolic-event risk; reviewed local haemostatics included gauze pressure｜source #12｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 30155575, systematic review)｜period=2019｜geo: universal｜span:「The interruption of antithrombotics prior to tooth removal because of the fear of bleeding or following postoperative bleeding increases the risk of thromboembolic events」「The investigated haemostatics included gauze pressure」｜caveat: shared anchor with card #20 F8 and card #28 F14; this card cites only haemostatic-measure categories and medication-interruption risk, and recommends no particular haemostatic material or drug.
• F21｜Cochrane systematic review (62 trials, 4,643 participants): mandibular wisdom-tooth surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling, and restricted opening; less commonly infection, dry socket, and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur｜source #13｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 32712962, Cochrane systematic review)｜period=2020 (searched to 2019-07-08)｜geo: universal｜span:「Surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less frequently, infection, dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur」｜caveat: background-description paragraph; the review itself compares surgical techniques, and this card does not cite its efficacy conclusions; many included studies excluded people in poorer health.
• F22｜In oral surgery, prevalent complications include haemorrhage in anticoagulated patients, infection in immunosuppressed patients, and osteonecrosis in people taking antiresorptive drugs; edema, pain, and inflammation are also common postoperative concerns｜source #15｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 40952869, systematic review of 23 publications)｜period=2024｜geo: universal｜span:「The most prevalent complications in oral surgery are hemorrhage in anticoagulated patients, infections in immunosuppressed patients, and osteonecrosis in patients who take antiresorptive drugs」「Edema, pain, and inflammation are also common post-operative concerns」｜caveat: setting is high-risk people taking multiple medicines, not the expected experience for ordinary extraction patients; this card cites complication categories, not management recommendations; shared anchor with card #20 F25.
• F23｜The mouth is a complex microenvironment influenced by oral movement, salivary flow, and bacterial biofilms; these factors may delay socket healing and lead to post-extraction complications｜source #16｜confidence=verified｜basis=peer_reviewed (PMID 39626339, narrative review)｜period=2025｜geo: universal｜span:「The oral cavity is a complex microenvironment, influenced by oral movements, salivary flow, and bacterial biofilms. These factors can contribute to delayed socket healing and the onset of post-extraction complications」｜caveat: narrative review in the biomaterials field, not a clinical trial; this card cites only its mechanistic description of the oral environment and no efficacy claim for a material or therapy.
• F24｜Article 81 of Taiwan's Medical Care Act: when a medical institution diagnoses or treats a patient, it must inform the patient or the patient's legal representative, spouse, relative, or related person about the condition, treatment policy, procedure, medication, prognosis, and possible adverse reactions｜source #17｜confidence=verified (2026-08-05 response 200 verified; statutory text matched verbatim)｜basis=law｜period=current statutory text｜geo: TW｜caveat: statutory quotation, not legal advice; shared anchor with card #20 F21 and card #28 F18.
• F25｜Article 87 of Taiwan's Medical Care Act: content that implicitly or allusively advertises medical business is treated as medical advertising; publication of medical knowledge or research reports, patient health education, and academic publications that do not solicit medical business are not treated as medical advertising｜source #18｜confidence=verified (2026-08-05 response 200 verified; both provisions matched verbatim)｜basis=law｜period=current statutory text｜geo: TW｜caveat: basis for this card's positioning; statutory quotation, not legal advice.
• F26 [structural compilation]｜Evidence-gap statement: on 2026-08-05 this site searched PubMed E-utilities using queries including extraction socket healing human histologic / post-extractional alveolar dimensional changes / alveolar osteitis dry socket incidence / smoking dry socket meta-analysis / soft tissue epithelialization extraction socket. It did not obtain a citable standardized clinical study of “days to complete soft-tissue closure,” nor direct clinical trials of “rinsing force and clot loss” or “food debris entering the socket equals infection.” This card therefore makes no promise of a number of healing days｜source #20｜confidence=n/a｜basis=editorial_framework｜period=2026-08-05｜geo: universal｜caveat: the search was limited to English PubMed literature and these queries; not obtaining evidence does not mean it has been disproved; this is an editorial statement and must not be marked a claim pending verification.

Source list

All access dates are 2026-08-05. PubMed records were retrieved with E-utilities efetch and their abstract wording checked verbatim; each record page was also individually verified to respond 200. Statutory provisions were verified against National Laws and Regulations Database pages responding 200, with the text checked verbatim.

1. Trombelli L, Farina R, Marzola A, Bozzi L, Liljenberg B, Lindhe J. Modeling and remodeling of human extraction sockets. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(7):630-639. PMID 18498382
2. Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23 Suppl 5:1-21. PMID 22211303
3. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003;23(4):313-323. PMID 12956475
4. Daly BJ, Sharif MO, Jones K, Worthington HV, Beattie A. Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;9(9):CD006968. PMID 36156769
5. Kuśnierek W, Brzezińska K, Nijakowski K, Surdacka A. Smoking as a Risk Factor for Dry Socket: A Systematic Review. Dent J (Basel). 2022;10(7):121. PMID 35877395
6. Kostares E, Kostare G, Kostares M, Kantzanou M. Prevalence of fibrinolytic alveolitis following extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024;125(4S):101810. PMID 38432484
7. Lodi G, Azzi L, Varoni EM, et al. Antibiotics to prevent complications following tooth extractions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;2(2):CD003811. PMID 33624847
8. Majid OW. Further evidence confirms the association between smoking and dry socket: a motivational opportunity for tobacco cessation. Evid Based Dent. 2023;24(4):181-183. PMID 37814003
9. Blum IR. Contemporary views on dry socket (alveolar osteitis): a clinical appraisal of standardization, aetiopathogenesis and management: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;31(3):309-317. PMID 12190139
10. Osunde OD, Adebola RA, Adeoye JB, et al. Effectiveness of warm saline mouth bath in preventing alveolar osteitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021;49(10):1001-1008. PMID 34509363
11. Yao J, Lee KK, McGrath C, Wu YN, Li KY, Mattheos N. 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
12. Ockerman A, Bornstein MM, Leung YY, Li SKY, Politis C, Jacobs R. Local haemostatic measures after tooth removal in patients on antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(4):1695-1708. PMID 30155575
13. Bailey E, Kashbour W, Shah N, Worthington HV, Renton TF, Coulthard P. Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;7(7):CD004345. PMID 32712962
14. Gaudin E, Seidel L, Bacevic M, Rompen E, Lambert F. Occurrence and risk indicators of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw after dental extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42(10):922-932. PMID 26362756
15. Morgado-Sevillano D, Rodríguez-Molinero J, García-Bravo C, et al. Oral surgery considerations in patients at high-risk of complications related to drug intake: A systematic review. Saudi Dent J. 2024;36(12):1503-1508. PMID 40952869
16. Yin Y, Shuai F, Liu X, Zhao Y, Han X, Zhao H. Biomaterials and therapeutic strategies designed for tooth extraction socket healing. Biomaterials. 2025;316:122975. PMID 39626339
17. Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 81 (official English translation, National Laws and Regulations Database)
18. Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 87 (official English translation, National Laws and Regulations Database)
19. Internal data: `analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` #1 appendix (9 queries × 2 sites × impression records, reconcilable item by item; total 378,675)
20. Editorial framework: this site's four-stage timeline structure and evidence-gap statement (no external source; labeled structural compilation)

Internal citation chain

• How to grade postoperative signs after bone grafting at or after extraction, and when to return: Can bone-graft granules cause sequelae? What happens if it fails? (KM-DENTAL-28) (antithrombotic and haemostasis anchor F20 = that card's F14)
• Postoperative diet timeline and item-by-item evidence on smoking, alcohol, and coffee: When can I eat after an implant? Can I drink coffee or tea? (KM-DENTAL-20) (symptom-trajectory anchor F19 = that card's F5; complication-category anchor F22 = that card's F25)
• Whether a socket should be replaced after it heals and what happens if it is not: Can a molar be left unreplaced after extraction? What happens? (KM-DENTAL-34)

Publication-gate note: this card is a draft. It must not enter `km_entries` until all four languages (zh-Hans／en／ja) exist. If direct evidence is found later for F26's evidence-gap statement, that section must be rewritten rather than retaining “not obtained.”