Since ancient times, there are many written references in the literature regarding the benefits of dental treatment in horses and every dental specialist will empirically confirm the value of a correction of the „abnormal“ patterns of wear and tear. But what is to be considered „abnormal“? Since Becker, a “scientifically based” recommendation for the routine removal of the enamel points seems to exist and has since become standard curriculum content in practically every dental training. But how valid is this often cited foundation? On closer look, Becker’s hypotheses regarding the improvement of feed utilisation have not been confirmed in the last 80 years. On the other hand the reinforced lateral excursion of the lower jaw observed by Leue and Becker cannot be generally classified as „positive“. It often seems to be a compensation pattern in response to the loss of function with further secondary side effects on the masticatory system. Today we increasingly see patients who have considerable problems with eating and/or feed utilisation after routine dental treatment. Even oesophageal blockage and constipation colic are seen with some time delay (up to two months after treatment). In addition, we do see tooth fractures, which are also with high probability a consequence of previous dental treatment. And last but not least, some treatment principles result in such high tooth wear that the reserve crowns of the molars are significantly prematurely used up and the animals show a pronounced senile smoothing of the chewing surface with all the associated consequences.

The non-existence of reliable test results regarding significant benefit or harm from current dental treatment can have two primary causes:
1. Due to the exceptionally high complexity, the scientific investigation of the benefits or harm of a routine dental treatment places above-average demands on the methodology, which until today no study design has met.
2. So far, practically nothing is known about age-specific compensation reserves, which may be available in the animal in case of “overfloating” to compensate for the loss of function caused.

Based on these facts, it is likely that the usual routine dental treatment unfortunately too often results in loss of function due to „over-floating“. This is compensated for in young and healthy animals, so that the real effect of the treatment is masked. Older and pre-damaged animals all too often end up in a decompensated state. But all too often these are pushed aside frivolously and uncritically. For this reason, from the author’s perspective it is time, to rethink the physiology of chewing, to critically scrutinise the treatment principles currently taught and to start a constructive analytical debate on this topic. The aim should be to re-evaluate the work patterns that are taught and thus gain new insights into possible real benefits or damage of the masticatory system to develop a genuine indication as the basis for our work.