🔗 IDA SENTENCE ANALYSIS
當細菌指侵蝕到牙齒表面，有很大的機率是可以不用拔… — sentence-by-sentence verification
0
Provable
1
Partly supported
2
Pending
0
Contradicted
What this page measures: whether each outward-facing statement on this article can be supported by dental research literature. Provable and partly-supported statements carry real PubMed references; pending and contradicted ones are marked only as "examined but insufficient / counter-evidence found", with no claim of support. The analysed content itself lives on source page ↗.
🔗 Sentence-by-sentence analysis (3 statements)
DNT-F080CF7B8DF6
當細菌指侵蝕到牙齒表面，有很大的機率是可以不用拔牙的，只要仔細清除蛀牙範圍，再封填上補綴物就能解決蛀牙的問題。
○ Pending (insufficient evidence; no claim of support)
10 candidate paper(s) examined; evidence insufficient to support this statement; still needed: 完整主张：细菌仅侵蚀牙表面时很可能不用拔牙，清除填满即可
DNT-EC6219374B2E
另一個比較嚴重的狀況是細菌已經侵蝕到神經組織，這就無法單靠一般的補牙程序，必須以根管治療的方式才能留下最多的自然齒質。
◐ Partly supported (scope noted below)
Supported scope: evidence证实根管治疗适用于细菌性牙髓损伤（即claim中的细菌侵蚀神经组织）
DNT-1B2BC620B893
根管治療後的牙齒相當脆弱，一定要製作牙套保護，否則咀嚼途中碎裂的話恐還是難逃拔牙的命運。
○ Pending (insufficient evidence; no claim of support)
10 candidate paper(s) examined; evidence insufficient to support this statement; still needed: 決定性 gate 未通過；不得以檢索相似度或主題重疊升為可證明。
🗂 Related analyses (8)
🏛 View this clinic's IDA embassy →
server-rendered · verifiability = degree of literature support · idaeo-platform