Two years ago my dentist worked with my front incisors which had been broken in a freak pogo-stick accident when I was a child. Way back then, my childhood dentist told me one day the teeth might die and need root canals. Fifteen years later, I developed a blister over one of the incisors and went to a new dentist.

She said that I needed a root canal on that tooth. From the x-ray she said the other tooth looked okay for now, but would probably require root canal treatment in the future. She scheduled me for a root canal for the infected tooth and told me I would need crowns for both front teeth.

After forking over more than $2000 from my own pocket after insurance (she's an expensive cosmetic dentist... I didn't realize this when I chose her from my insurance list, she's just the closest dentist to my house), I had my gorgeous new crowns.

Two years later I develop a blister above the OTHER incisor. I went in, expecting a normal root canal. "We have to go down through the porcelain crown to do this root canal, Ben, and there's a good chance that it will shatter. Which means you'd need to replace BOTH crowns if that happens. Oh, and by the way, it's standard in the dental insurance industry that insurance will not cover ANY work on a crown that is less than 5 years old. So you'll be paying for the new crowns out of your own pocket."

My question is... why didn't she recommend a root canal on BOTH teeth before she crowned them. Even if the other tooth wasn't in questionable health (it was, but let's pretend it wasn't), isn't it pretty much standard practice to do a root canal on a tooth before it's crowned?

I'm feeling like this is a scam she does to make extra cash. Crown a questionable tooth without a root canal because you KNOW the client will have to pay for new crowns in another year or two when they need finally do a root canal...

Anyone have any thoughts?

Ben in Dallas