I agree with the extenuating circumstances possibility, but none of
that was discussed with me at the time. If extenuating circumstances
did exist, I would have expected to have been told of that and further
why no crown was advisable.

My complaint is that if indeed this current situation arose because a
crown SHOULD have been done but wasn't, that some fault lies with the
original dentist (or office, or company, etc.). The insurance part of
this is that I wouldn't worry so much if I currently had insurance, as
the brunt of the cost of the mistake would still be paid by the
insurance. So, my lack of insurance currently means that I am paying
out-of-pocket for a problem that possibly shouldn't exist if the
correct procedures were done at the time.

And I don't even have all the information yet, so I am speculating. But
my complaint is certainly due to the unexpected expense I may have to
lay out, yes.

I did put in a call to the corporate offices. They called the
particular office and relayed my situation. Unfortunately, the office
manager is on vacation until next week (this seems to be a popular week
for dental office vacations--my timing is never good), so I should
receive a call back on Monday.

--Greg

Well, the initial response I received from the office manager is that
crowns are routinely placed on molars that have root canals but not
pre-molars because pre-molars aren't used for biting down as hard. This
strikes me as completely arbitrary.

Does this make sense from a scientific or dental standpoint?

The dentist himself is supposed to contact me tomorrow.

--Greg