Implant or denture for a missing tooth? Seven conditions decide—not a comparison chart｜證據鏈

Implant or denture for a missing tooth? Seven conditions decide—not a comparison chart｜證據鏈

F-Units (factual-unit ledger)

• F1｜confidence: structural synthesis (editorial framework, not an external factual claim)｜basis: editorial_framework｜period: 2026-08-06｜geo: universal｜span: 「The seven-condition decision framework,」 “term alignment (fixed prosthesis/removable denture/implant-supported prosthesis),” and division-of-work links to KM-DENTAL-35/34/3/13/9/22/45/32 are communication structures developed by this site from the F2–F21 literature｜caveat: Not a clinical criterion or diagnostic tool and does not replace a dentist’s assessment; this unit must not be read as a medical factual claim
• F2｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 29476794)｜period: PROSPERO CRD42017064851; published 2018｜geo: universal｜span: 「there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend one tooth replacement strategy over another in adult patients with reduced dentitions」「Ten articles were included in this systematic review.」｜caveat: Population limited to adults with shortened/reduced dentitions, not all missing-tooth situations; same anchor as F1 of KM-DENTAL-35 and F8 of KM-DENTAL-34; this card summarizes rather than rewrites them
• F3｜confidence: verified (status checked)｜basis: withdrawn_publication/not_evidence (PMID 31425605)｜period: marked withdrawn 2019-07-17; esummary pubtype includes Retracted Publication｜geo: universal｜span: 「WITHDRAWN: Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition」｜caveat: Used only to record that no current valid Cochrane-level conclusion exists for this question; none of its conclusions is used as clinical evidence; same anchor as F3 of KM-DENTAL-35
• F4｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, PMID 34516686)｜period: searched to 2021-01; published 2022｜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: Success means pulpal and periapical status, not survival of the bridge itself; observational studies only, with high heterogeneity (reported I2 77.84% to 95.01%); same anchor as F11 of KM-DENTAL-45 and KM-DENTAL-11/37
• F5｜confidence: verified｜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; association rather than causation. This card does not use the single-crown subgroup figures, which belong to KM-DENTAL-11; same anchor as F12 of KM-DENTAL-45
• F6｜confidence: verified｜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.」「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.」｜caveat: Narrative review, not a meta-analysis, with no pooled estimate; this card uses only the planning-factor list and pontic-hygiene statement, not a quantitative conclusion; same anchor as F13 of KM-DENTAL-45
• F7｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 34773513)｜period: searched 1980-01 through 2020-02; published 2021｜geo: universal｜span: 「Nineteen studies were finally included after the perusal of the full text.」「The reported marginal bone loss ranged from 0.3 mm to 2.30 mm. The patient satisfaction was higher with IARPD than with conventional RPDs or that before treatment. The results of prosthetic complications were heterogeneous and inconclusive.」「IARPD exhibited favorable clinical outcomes when used as a replacement for distal extension edentulous areas.」｜caveat: Of 19 studies, 14 were limited to Kennedy Class I and only 1 separately examined Class II; the authors found the Class I/II comparison inconclusive. This card deliberately does not cite the review’s implant-survival figures, which are ranges rather than pooled estimates and belong to KM-DENTAL-35; it does not claim that an implant-assisted design is superior
• F8｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 26066662)｜period: searched 2003 through 2014; published 2015｜geo: universal｜span: 「Comminution or mixing ability in subjects with (E)SDA was 28-39% lower compared to that of subjects with complete dentitions」「distal-extension RDPs could compensate this reduction partially (some 50%)」｜caveat: SDA = 3 to 5 posterior occlusal pairs; ESDA = 0 to 2; few studies were included. Same anchor as F14 of KM-DENTAL-34 and F11 of KM-DENTAL-35; this card summarizes rather than rewrites them
• F9｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 30624789)｜period: searched to 2018-05; published 2019; rechecked 2026-08-06—recent reviews on the topic mostly address specific techniques or materials, and no replacement long-term effectiveness update was found｜geo: universal｜span: 「Inclusion criteria were prospective studies with follow-up ≥5 years and a residual bone height ≤6 mm.」「Meta-analysis revealed a weighted annual implant loss of 0.43% (95% CI: 0.37%-0.49%).」「Meta-regression analysis did not reveal significant differences in implant loss neither between edentulous and dentate patients nor implants placed simultaneously with or delayed after MSFA, nor implants placed in MSFA using solely autologous bone or bone substitutes.」｜caveat: Limited to the lateral-window technique and people with residual bone height of 6 mm or less; annual loss is a population estimate, not an individual risk; same anchor as F13 of KM-DENTAL-24
• F10｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials, with trial sequential analysis and GRADE, PMID 38764386)｜period: PROSPERO CRD42021254365; published 2024｜geo: universal｜span: 「Forty reports on 19 RCTs comprising 2214 (1097 short; 1117 long) implants were included.」「Moderate/high certainty/quality evidence demonstrated similar 5-year survival rates for ≤6-mm and ≥10-mm implants in non-augmented bone and full-mouth rehabilitation in either jaw, and for 6-mm implants in the maxilla instead of sinus lift.」「Nevertheless, the evidence for 5-year survival rates remains inconclusive or insufficient for the remaining combinations of implant lengths and clinical scenarios. They include 4-mm and 5-mm implants as alternatives to sinus lift as well as placing all implant lengths ≤6 mm instead of vertical ridge augmentation with long implants.」｜caveat: The conclusion applies only in the source’s named settings: native bone, full-mouth rehabilitation, and a 6-mm maxillary implant instead of sinus augmentation. The authors call other combinations inconclusive or insufficient; this must not be read as “all short implants can replace bone grafting”
• F11｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 36807599)｜period: searched to 2022-08; published 2023｜geo: universal｜span: 「diabetic patients with dental implants and good glycaemic control have a significantly lower risk of peri-implantitis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.96; I2 : 0%)」「Patients attending supportive periodontal/peri-implant care (SPC) regularly have a lower risk of overall PIDs (OR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.24-0.75; I2 : 57%)」「The risk of dental implant failure (OR = 3.76; 95% CI: 1.50-9.45; I2 : 0%) appears to be greater under irregular or no SPC than regular SPC.」｜caveat: The authors identify indirect evidence and evidence limitations. Glycaemic-control comparison is within patients with diabetes and must not be read as “diabetes rules out implants”; same anchor as F22 of KM-DENTAL-7 and F10 of KM-DENTAL-28
• F12｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (overview of systematic reviews whose methods describe a narrative literature review, PMID 33571324)｜period: topic searches to 2019-02; published 2021｜geo: universal｜span: 「Age > 75 years does not affect implant survival according to short-term follow up (1 to 5 years).」「Implant therapy cannot be recommended in patients under high-dose bisphosphonate and antibody therapy. Bone grafting should be avoided under antiresorptive therapy.」「This review suggests that the risk assessment for an implant patient should not be based on age, but rather on the patient's specific risk factors, such as former and current diseases and medication.」｜caveat: Although titled an overview of systematic reviews, its methods call it a narrative literature review; evidence level must be read accordingly. Searches end at 2019-02; read the low-dose setting together with F13 (2025). Its “cannot be recommended” statement is recorded as literature, not as an instruction for any person
• F13｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 40505730)｜period: searched 1946 through 2024; published 2025-09 (online 2025-06-10)｜geo: universal｜span: 「Random-effects meta-analysis revealed wide confidence intervals (CIs) for implant failure among those exposed to antiresorptives (relative risk, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.28; P = .38, very low certainty).」「We identified 186 cases of MRONJ in implant recipients. The pooled rate of MRONJ following implantation in those exposed to antiresorptive therapy was 0.5% pooled from 21 cohorts. A single report of risk-adjusted MRONJ found that bisphosphonates increased MRONJ by 3 cases per 1000 patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.09; 95% CI, 2.75-6.09; P < .001, moderate certainty).」｜caveat: Population limited to osteoporosis/osteopenia—the low-dose setting—and must not be mixed with high-dose cancer populations; certainty for relative risk of implant failure is very low. This card does not use the paper’s conclusion about antiresorptive treatment reducing implant failure as any recommendation
• F14｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis, PMID 40530953)｜period: update covering 2021 through 2024 literature; published 2025-09 (online 2025-06-18)｜geo: universal｜span: 「Nine studies were identified, with seven included in the quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The implant survival rate was significantly lower in irradiated patients (85.6%) compared to non-irradiated patients (90.0%)」「implant failure risk was higher in grafted bone (RR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.39-2.96, p = 0.0018, I2 = 21.9%) than in native bone」「The implant survival rate was significantly lower in irradiated patients (85.6%) compared to non-irradiated patients (90.0%) (RR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.33-1.98, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0.2%).」｜caveat: Both figures are limited to patients with head-and-neck cancer and must not be extrapolated to bone-graft implants in the general population. The grafted-versus-native-bone sentence begins “Additionally” without restricting it to the irradiated subgroup; the next sentence begins “Among irradiated patients” for radiochemotherapy. This card therefore reads the former as applying directly to the review’s overall head-and-neck-cancer study population, neither narrowing it to irradiated patients nor broadening it to the general population (per incident-log item 8a dated 2026-08-06: terms and scope follow the source, with no invented conservative definition). The review builds on earlier 2014 and 2022 reviews and is the current latest version
• F15｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (umbrella review, PMID 38762079)｜period: searched to 2023-10; PROSPERO CRD42024512408; published 2024｜geo: universal｜span: 「None of the associations were graded as convincing evidence」「Two associations, presence of periodontitis (OR = 3.84 [95 % CI 2.58,5.72]) and cigarette smoking (RR=2.07 [95 % CI 1.41,3.04]) were graded as highly suggestive」｜caveat: Included 12 articles and 41 meta-analyses; synthesis of observational studies, so association does not establish causation. Same anchor as F5 of KM-DENTAL-35; summarized here rather than rewritten
• F16｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review, PMID 34761421)｜period: searched 1966 through 2020; published 2022｜geo: universal｜span: 「Two retrospective studies indicated that RDPs increased the risk of tooth loss compared to FDPs in patients with a history of periodontitis」「Several studies indicated that RDP increased plaque accumulation」「There is no strong evidence that RDPs per se will cause periodontal destruction including tooth loss」｜caveat: Heterogeneous data were not meta-analyzed; the risk population is limited to people with a history of periodontitis. The conclusion and the first two statements point in different directions and are all presented here; citing only one side is prohibited. Same anchor as F10 of KM-DENTAL-35 and F15 of KM-DENTAL-34
• F17｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review with narrative synthesis, PMID 41204923)｜period: published 2026-02｜geo: universal｜span: 「Twenty-five studies met inclusion criteria: 9 randomized controlled trials, 13 cohort studies, and 3 case-control studies.」「SPiT, particularly with individualized, risk-based recall intervals, consistently improved clinical outcomes, such as probing depth and bleeding on probing compared with standard or no maintenance.」「High clinical and methodological heterogeneity among studies, inconsistent documentation of systemic conditions, and variability in adjunctive therapies limited definitive conclusions and generalizability.」｜caveat: No meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity; narrative synthesis was used. This card cites the directional conclusion together with the limitation statement and no pooled effect. It does not convert the paper’s practical recommendation into a prescribed recall interval for readers
• F18｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline (EFP S3-level clinical-practice guideline, PMID 37271498)｜period: published 2023; 13 commissioned systematic reviews｜geo: universal｜span: 「Once the implants are loaded and in function, a supportive peri-implant care programme should be structured, including periodical assessment of peri-implant tissue health」｜caveat: The guideline’s treatment recommendations address clinicians. This card cites only the structural fact that implants require long-term supportive care, not an efficacy claim; same anchor as F7 of KM-DENTAL-35
• F19｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline (ITI consensus report, PMID 30328187)｜period: published 2018｜geo: universal｜span: 「Edentulous patients highly rate both removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses. However, they rate their ability to maintain their oral hygiene significantly higher with the removable prosthesis.」「Patient-reported outcome measures should be gathered in every clinical study in which the outcomes of oral rehabilitation with dental implants are investigated. PROMs, such as patients' satisfaction and QHRQoL, should supplement other clinical parameters in our clinical definition of success.」｜caveat: The cleaning self-assessment is limited to edentulous patients and compares two implant-supported prostheses. It must not be extrapolated to claim that an ordinary removable denture is easier to clean than a fixed prosthesis. This consensus report is not a meta-analysis; same anchor as F28 of KM-DENTAL-13 and F9 of KM-DENTAL-32
• F20｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (trial-level meta-analysis with contextual synthesis of systematic reviews, PMID 42386429)｜period: searched to 2025-10; published online 2026-07-01｜geo: universal｜span: 「Seven systematic reviews and 2 additional RCTs were identified, yielding 40 unique trials and more than 1200 single implants with follow-up ranging from 1 to 10 years.」「No statistically significant differences were found in implant survival between immediate and conventional loading at 1 year (RR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.02), 2 years (RR=1.01; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.05), 3 years (RR=1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.05), or 5 years (RR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.03), nor between immediate and early loading at 1 year (RR=0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.02).」「When applied under appropriate clinical conditions, immediate loading of single implants demonstrated survival, marginal bone stability, complication rates, and patient satisfaction comparable to early or conventional loading.」｜caveat: Population limited to single implants; certainty is moderate for survival and low to very low for secondary outcomes. The conclusion is conditional on “appropriate clinical conditions,” which the body preserves. This 2026 paper is newer than F21 (2019) but has a different, narrower population, so both are presented rather than one replacing the other
• F21｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed (systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, PMID 31421892)｜period: searched to 2018-10; published 2019-12｜geo: universal｜span: 「Thirty-nine trials (49 articles) were included from the initial 763 references evaluated.」「When compared with conventional loading, with implants regarded as a statistical unit, a statistically significant lower survival rate was observed in the immediate loading dental implant (RR=0.974; 95% CI, 0.954, 0.994; P=.012).」「Compared with early loading, immediate loading could achieve comparable implant survival rates and marginal bone level changes.」｜caveat: Population includes varied fixed-prosthesis rehabilitation settings, not only single implants; the statistical unit is the implant. A 2026-08-06 update search found F20 (2026), but its population is narrower, so both are presented
• F22｜confidence: verified (loaded in ego-browser and matched verbatim on 2026-08-06)｜basis: law｜period: current provision｜geo: TW｜span: Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 21: “Standards for medical fees charged by the medical care institution shall be determined by the municipal or county(city)competent authority.”｜caveat: Statutory quotation, not legal advice
• F23｜confidence: verified (loaded in ego-browser and matched verbatim on 2026-08-06)｜basis: law｜period: current provision｜geo: TW｜span: Taiwan National Health Insurance Act, Article 51, Item 11: “Dentures, artificial eyes, spectacles, hearing aids, wheelchairs, canes, and other treatment equipment not required for positive therapy.”｜caveat: Individual coverage depends on current National Health Insurance Administration announcements. This card makes no coverage determination; same anchor as VERIFIED-FACTS
• F24｜confidence: verified (loaded in ego-browser and read verbatim on 2026-08-06)｜basis: official_statement｜period: metadata updated 2026-07-13｜geo: TW｜span: The Taiwan Government Data Open Platform dataset “Taipei City Medical Fee Standards” is provided by the Taipei City Government Department of Health and updated on an irregular basis｜caveat: Example from one municipality only; for other areas, consult the current approved document of the competent authority where the patient is registered or receives care　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「臺北市醫療收費標準」]
• F25｜confidence: verified (OP loaded both tracks in ego-browser on 2026-08-05 and found no dental item)｜basis: official_statement｜period: current entry-point status｜geo: TW｜span: Neither track in Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration’s “Medical Device Price Comparison” site—12 balance-billing device categories and 8 device-fee comparison categories—contains a dental item｜caveat: Taken from this site’s cross-card verified fact file (VERIFIED-FACTS.md); not retested for this card. Its purpose is to prevent an unproductive search, not to serve as a dental-fee verification channel　[On the official page the label appears in Chinese only: 「醫材比價網」]
• F26｜confidence: verified (loaded in ego-browser and matched verbatim on 2026-08-06)｜basis: law｜period: current provision｜geo: TW｜span: Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 81: “When treating the patient, the medical care institution shall inform the patient or his/her legal agent, spouse, kin, or interested party of his/her condition, course of treatment, disposition, medication, expected condition, and possible ill effects.”｜caveat: Statutory quotation, not legal advice; same anchor as F28 of KM-DENTAL-35
• F27｜confidence: verified｜basis: internal_dataset｜period: 2025-03 through 2026-08 GSC｜geo: TW｜span: The 「三、診所補題」 table in km-production-queue.html records 9,883 impressions for the query 「植牙 假牙」 and lists one site， in the mounting field｜caveat: Impressions are asset-level figures, not deduplicated traffic. The mounted-clinic list follows that queue row and must not be altered. This is internal data and is removed from the visible layer during publication conversion
• F28｜confidence: verified (loaded in ego-browser and matched verbatim on 2026-08-06)｜basis: law｜period: current provision｜geo: TW｜span: Taiwan Medical Care Act, Article 87: “Publications of new medical knowledge or research results, health education for patients, or academic publications which do not involve solicitation for medical practices shall not be regarded as advertisements for medical care.”｜caveat: Statutory quotation, not legal advice; same anchor as VERIFIED-FACTS

Sources

• S1 Fueki K, Baba K. Shortened dental arch and prosthetic effect on oral health-related quality of life：關於補牙策略之系統性回顧。PMID 29476794. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29476794（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；同錨 KM-DENTAL-35）
• S2 WITHDRAWN: Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. PMID 31425605. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31425605（取用 2026-08-06，pubtype 含 Retracted Publication；標為非證據，僅記錄證據缺口）
• S3 Kohli S, Bhatia S, Al-Haddad A, Pulikkotil SJ, Jamayet NB. Pulpal and Periapical Status of the Vital Teeth Used as Abutment for Fixed Prosthesis—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Prosthodont. 2022;31(2):102-114. PMID 34516686. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34516686（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S4 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（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S5 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（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S6 Putra Wigianto AY, Goto T, Iwawaki Y, Ishida Y, Watanabe M, Ichikawa T. Treatment outcomes of implant-assisted removable partial denture with distal extension based on the Kennedy classification and attachment type: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7(1):111. PMID 34773513. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34773513（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S7 Kosuru KRV 等。Comminution/mixing ability in shortened dental arches：系統性回顧。PMID 26066662. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26066662（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；同錨 KM-DENTAL-34／35）
• S8 Raghoebar GM, Onclin P, Boven GC, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. Long-term effectiveness of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46 Suppl 21:307-318. PMID 30624789. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30624789（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；同錨 KM-DENTAL-24）
• S9 Ravidà A, Serroni M, Borgnakke WS, et al. Short (≤6 mm) compared with ≥10-mm dental implants in different clinical scenarios: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and quality of evidence grading. J Clin Periodontol. 2024;51(7):936-965. PMID 38764386. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38764386（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S10 Carra MC, Blanc-Sylvestre N, Courtet A, Bouchard P. Primordial and primary prevention of peri-implant diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2023;50 Suppl 26:77-112. PMID 36807599. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36807599（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；同錨 KM-DENTAL-7／28）
• S11 Fretwurst T, Nelson K. Influence of Medical and Geriatric Factors on Implant Success: An Overview of Systematic Reviews. Int J Prosthodont. 2021;34(Suppl):s21-s26. PMID 33571324. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33571324（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；方法段自述敘述性回顧）
• S12 Mirza R, El Rabbany M, Ali DS, et al. Dental Implant Failure and Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Related to Dental Implants in Patients Taking Antiresorptive Therapy for Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Endocr Pract. 2025;31(9):1189-1196. PMID 40505730. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40505730（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S13 Fan S, Diaz L, Sáenz-Ravello G, Valmaseda-Castellon E, Al-Nawas B, Schiegnitz E. Comprehensive Update on Implants in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer (2021-2024): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025;36(9):1035-1052. PMID 40530953. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40530953（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S14 Peri-implantitis 風險因子傘狀回顧。PMID 38762079. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38762079（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；同錨 KM-DENTAL-35）
• S15 Removable partial dentures and periodontal health：系統性回顧。PMID 34761421. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34761421（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；同錨 KM-DENTAL-34／35）
• S16 Efficacy of supportive peri-implant therapy in the management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: A systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc. 2026. PMID 41204923. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41204923（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S17 Herrera D, Berglundh T, Schwarz F, et al. Prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases—The EFP S3 level clinical practice guideline. J Clin Periodontol. 2023. PMID 37271498. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37271498（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；同錨 KM-DENTAL-35）
• S18 Feine J, Abou-Ayash S, Al Mardini M, et al. Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: Patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29 Suppl 16:270-275. PMID 30328187. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30328187（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；同錨 KM-DENTAL-13／32）
• S19 Pachiou A, Strauss FJ, Pagkalidou E, et al. Clinical outcomes of immediate versus early or conventional loading of single implants: A de novo RCT-level meta-analysis with contextual synthesis of systematic reviews. J Prosthet Dent. 2026. PMID 42386429. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42386429（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上；線上先行刊出）
• S20 Chen J, Cai M, Yang J, Aldhohrah T, Wang Y. Immediate versus early or conventional loading dental implants with fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122(6):516-536. PMID 31421892. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31421892（取用 2026-08-06，efetch 摘要逐字對得上）
• S21 《醫療法》第 21 條、第 81 條、第 87 條，全國法規資料庫。law.moj.gov.tw（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，三條條文逐字對得上）
• S22 《全民健康保險法》第 51 條，全國法規資料庫。law.moj.gov.tw（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，逐字對得上）
• S23 政府資料開放平臺資料集「臺北市醫療收費標準」（提供機關：臺北市政府衛生局）。data.gov.tw/dataset/121913（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，逐字讀取）
• S24 本站跨卡已驗事實檔 `km-compliance/VERIFIED-FACTS.md`：健保署「醫材比價網」兩軌查詢類別皆不含牙科（2026-08-05 OP 親驗）。
• S25 內部資料：`km-production-queue.html`「三、診所補題」表本題列（編務用，明細不對外揭露）。

Internal citation chain

• Full option comparison and “What if I cannot afford replacement?”: Do missing teeth always require implants? What if replacement is unaffordable? (KM-DENTAL-35)
• What changes without replacement and the shortened-dental-arch concept: Can a missing molar be left unreplaced, and what may happen? (KM-DENTAL-34)
• Fixed-prosthesis cost components and reading a quotation: How much does one fixed prosthesis cost? (KM-DENTAL-3)
• Removable-denture cost components and types: How much does a removable denture cost? (KM-DENTAL-13)
• How implant costs are structured: How much does an implant cost? (KM-DENTAL-9)
• A fixed option requiring less tooth preparation: What is a resin-bonded (Maryland) bridge, and who may be eligible? (KM-DENTAL-22)
• The cost of preparing adjacent teeth and possible regrets after a bridge: Will I regret getting a bridge? (KM-DENTAL-45)
• What bone grafting is and how long it takes: What is bone-graft material for implants? (KM-DENTAL-24)
• Extensive or full-mouth tooth loss: How much does full-mouth rehabilitation cost? (KM-DENTAL-32)

Publication-gate reminder: this card is a draft and cannot enter km_entries until all four languages (zh-Hans/en/ja) exist. The mounted clinic follows the “植牙 假牙” row in the queue page’s “Clinic supplemental topics” section (C06 is registered in c-series-map.tsv), and the machine gate uses the C-series comparison path. This is not a symptom-triage card and contains no emergency red-flag criterion, so the fifth review layer in ANK-DENTAL-SPEC does not require a third GM opinion. Condition 4, however, contains risk statements about high-dose antiresorptive treatment and radiotherapy populations, so OP may choose an additional cross-architecture adversarial review.