Aim: The objective of this study is to evaluate clinically the reasons given for amalgam failure and subsequent replacements to avoid the pitfalls and issues concerning the failure of such restorations so that the restoration may have longer longevity and consequently greater success. Material And Method: The record file is the material used for the study and this record of treatment extracted from the records, with a regular attendee defined, record of α, 3 or 4 surfaces extracted and those regular attendees recalled for a cross-examination purposes to determine their inclusion or not in the study. There is also a set of inclusion criteria to be followed. Results: Fractured amalgam restorations, marginal fracture/Ditching, Recurrent caries, dislodged amalgam restoration, cervical overhang of amalgam restorations, fractured cusp and iatrogenic causes were listed as the reasons given for amalgam failure and consequent replacements. All 2, 3, 4 surfaces restorations were grouped together and fractured amalgam restoration amounted to 23 (70.9%), Marginal fractures/ditching 45 (13.5%), recurrent caries 30 (9.0%), Dislodged amalgam restoration 10 (3.0%), cervical overhang of amalgam restoration 8 (2.4%) and fractured cusp 4 (1.2%). The study was subjected to gender test and the same order was seen. In females fractured amalgam restoration formed (46.8%) of all the restoration, marginal fracture/Ditching 8.1% (27), Recurrent Caries 6.0% (20), Dislodged amalgam restoration 0.9% (03) and cervical overhanging amalgam restoration was 2.1% (07) fractured cusp was 0.6% (02) while male amalgam restoration accounts for 24% (80),, Ditching 5.4% (18) Recurrent caries 3.0% (10), dislodged amalgam restoration 2.1% (07) and cervical oveehanging 0.3% (01) and fractured cusp 0.6% (02). When the results of the study for replacement of amalgam was pooled together for all gender fractured amalgam restoration, marginal defect (Ditching, Recurrent caries, Dislodged amalgam restoration and