Purpose: Many clinical procedures in prosthodontics, as in other dental specialties, lack solid proof, leaving us in the dark about their effects and, worse yet, unsure of whether they cause more harm than good. This paper's objective is to discuss recent research for a few specific treatments after carefully reading the prosthodontic literature. Study choice: The best available evidence was the focus of the MEDLINE/PubMed search for literature on the chosen topics. Results: Many "ancient truths" about prosthodontic procedures might be referred to as dogmas; they are beliefs that are supported more by faith than by facts. For particular, there is little evidence to back up the notion that a face-bow is required in the creation of prostheses, and many occlusion-related theories lack supporting data. The article provides examples of some of these dogmas in various fields of the profession and discusses them. Conclusion: Examining the prosthodontic literature reveals that many prevalent clinical procedures are not backed by sufficient evidence. In the era of evidence-based dentistry, it is important to eliminate ineffective interventions and base decisions on the best available data.