🔗 IDA SENTENCE ANALYSIS
媒體報導 宜蘭植牙新聞│口腔健康－全瓷冠比傳統瓷… — sentence-by-sentence verification
0
Provable
0
Partly supported
6
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 (6 statements)
DNT-0064336D53C0
媒體報導 宜蘭植牙新聞│口腔健康－全瓷冠比傳統瓷牙更美觀 又容易打理 口腔健康－全瓷冠比傳統瓷牙更美觀 又容易打理 2013/01/29 洪錦龍 【台北訊】 許多病患求診時常抱怨門牙邊緣有黑邊，
○ 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。
DNT-6D37E4A2468F
不過傳統的牙冠裝上後卻出現牙齦黑邊外露、色澤死白或者形狀不美觀，為了美麗的門面，選擇全瓷冠假牙是趨勢。
○ Pending (insufficient evidence; no claim of support)
10 candidate paper(s) examined; evidence insufficient to support this statement; still needed: 全句宣稱：傳統牙冠有牙齦黑邊、色澤死白、形狀不美觀，以及全瓷冠為趨勢，均未被此案例報告支持。
DNT-5C112A01AAF7
達文西牙醫院長吳權倫表示，全瓷冠是利用高純度的三氧化二鋁，氧化鋯或是一些結晶比例很高的瓷來取代傳統瓷牙冠的金屬內冠。
○ Pending (insufficient evidence; no claim of support)
10 candidate paper(s) examined; evidence insufficient to support this statement; still needed: 聲稱全瓷冠以三氧化二鋁、氧化鋯或高結晶瓷取代金屬內冠，且引述特定診所院長；證據僅是陶瓷牙冠電腦模擬，未提及材料成分或金屬內冠替代。
DNT-7E2A3F73A7A2
因為全瓷冠完全沒有金屬，所以可以讓較多的光線穿透，在視覺上改善了上述傳統瓷牙的透明度低的缺點，在齒頸部的牙齦也不會有金屬內冠的陰影存在。
○ Pending (insufficient evidence; no claim of support)
10 candidate paper(s) examined; evidence insufficient to support this statement; still needed: 全瓷冠無金屬、光線穿透、透明度改善、齒頸部牙齦無金屬內冠陰影等美觀與材料特性宣稱，證據均未觸及。
DNT-A312D5DAD5B2
全瓷牙套適用於蛀牙過大，根管治療過之牙齒，牙冠斷裂，磨損或形狀異常等。
○ Pending (insufficient evidence; no claim of support)
10 candidate paper(s) examined; evidence insufficient to support this statement; still needed: 全瓷牙套的適用範圍（蛀牙過大、根管治療後、牙冠斷裂、磨損或形狀異常）
DNT-421FCF862C73
台灣大學附設醫院假牙贗復科兼任主治醫師吳權倫提出，牙套內不會發生蛀牙，問題經常是發生在牙套與牙齒接觸的邊緣。
○ Pending (insufficient evidence; no claim of support)
10 candidate paper(s) examined; evidence insufficient to support this statement; still needed: 吳權倫醫師身分與其宣稱（牙套內不會蛀牙、問題在牙套邊緣）均未被證據提及。
🗂 Related analyses (8)
🏛 View this clinic's IDA embassy →
server-rendered · verifiability = degree of literature support · idaeo-platform