<p>Remakes in fixed prosthodontics present ongoing clinical and logistical challenges, including increased chairside time, laboratory costs, and patient dissatisfaction. Understanding the prevalence and causes of these remakes is essential for improving restorative outcomes and workflow efficiency. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of laboratory remakes for fixed prosthodontic restorations and examine associations with restoration type, material, and operator classification in a multicenter setting. We conducted a retrospective, multicenter audit of 40,344 indirect restorations fabricated in seven dental laboratories in Riyadh. Predefined null hypotheses posited no associations between remake reasons and (a) restoration type, (b) material, or (c) operator classification. Pearson χ² tests were used (α = 0.05). There were 2,612 remakes. By restoration, remake prevalence was veneers 7.5%, onlays 7.1%, crowns 6.9%, bridges 4.8%, and endocrowns 4.0%. Leading reasons were margin-fit discrepancy 29.5%, proximal-fit issue 23.2%, and improper fit 22.7%. Materials were differentially associated with remake reasons (e.g., shade mismatch more frequent with lithium-disilicate; proximal-fit problems more frequent with monolithic zirconia; all p &lt; 0.05). Reason profiles differed by operator classification. Remakes were common and patterned by restoration type, material, and operator classification. Addressable targets include margins and proximal contacts, clearer laboratory prescriptions, and staged adoption of digital workflows with competency-based training. These observations can inform local quality-improvement initiatives.</p>