Re-restoring teeth is an important component of operative dentistry, and the perceived presence of Re-restoring caries is a major reason for undertaking it. In the absence of a diagnosis of secondary caries, a morphological discrepancy at the margin of a restoration commonly provides the necessary justification for replacement. However, several studies have demonstrated enormous variation among dentists, both in their diagnosis of secondary caries and in the clinical decisions they make regarding whether or not to restore or re-restore. Many of these decisions must have been wrong. Decisions to re-restore teeth have been shown to be particularly idiosyncratic, and some patients apparently become involved in a repeat restoration cycle whereby the more restorations they have, the more re-restorations they receive.
The desire by some dentists to replace large numbers of restorations, for reasons other than the presence of disease, shows a fallibility of operative treatment. At the same time it suggests that these dentists have considerable faith in this aspect of dental care. There would appear to be a prima facie case for investigating more deeply the factors involved in the clinical assessment of restorations. It should then be possible to improve the standard of diagnosis and treatment decision-making, especially with respect to the need to re-restore teeth.
