How to practise these operative dentistry viva questions
These practice stations focus on decisions a candidate may need to explain in operative dentistry: assessing pulpal status, choosing a conservative restorative approach, controlling the operative field, and responding to symptoms after treatment. They are study exercises, not a description of any particular university or licensing examination. Check your examining body’s website for its current viva format and assessment criteria.
For each station, answer aloud before reading the model. Give a short, ordered response: state your working diagnosis, name the findings that support it, explain your immediate plan, then mention consent, alternatives and review where relevant. If the information is incomplete, say what you would ask or examine before committing to a diagnosis. Avoid presenting one material or technique as mandatory when the case does not justify that certainty.
A useful practice target is a response of about two to three minutes, followed by a brief self-review. That is a training suggestion, not an official station length. Listen for whether you have explained the reason for each decision, not just named a procedure.
The feedback rows in these examples are practice feedback categories, not an official examination rubric. MySummaries turns a candidate’s own revision material into oral practice; the examiner profile below shows how a topic board can be turned into stations.
Choose a station and make a first attempt
Start with the opening question, then answer as if the examiner could ask you to justify any step. In clinical practice, treatment choices depend on examination findings, restorability, patient preferences and applicable local guidance. In a viva answer, make those dependencies explicit rather than filling gaps in the case with assumptions.
The station list below gives you three core topics and one further prompt to use after them. The attempts and scores are practice-tracking examples, not examination results.
Station 1: Deep caries in a vital molar
Question: A 26-year-old has deep caries in a mandibular first molar. The tooth is symptom-free, responds normally to cold testing, is not tender to percussion and has no periapical change on the radiograph. Talk me through your assessment and management.
A good answer does not treat a radiograph as a pulp diagnosis. First establish the history, clinical findings and whether the tooth can be restored. Then state what the current findings suggest, what uncertainty remains, and how you would limit the risk of exposing the pulp while achieving a durable seal.
Examiner
A 26-year-old has deep caries in a mandibular first molar. The tooth is symptom-free, responds normally to cold testing, is not tender to percussion and has no periapical change on the radiograph. Talk me through your assessment and management.
You used the symptom history and sensibility response, and noted the absence of percussion tenderness and periapical change.
ImproveSay that sensibility tests are not direct measures of pulpal blood supply, and compare with control teeth where appropriate.
You proposed a conservative approach to a deep lesion and prioritised a well-sealed restoration.
ImproveDistinguish selective caries removal near the pulp from achieving sound, clean margins at the periphery.
You mentioned the possibility of pulp exposure but did not clearly explain what would change your plan.
ImproveExplain the discussion if exposure occurs and how symptoms or an unexpected finding would prompt reassessment.
The sequence was clear and you included review, but the follow-up advice was brief.
ImproveGive the patient a clear route to return if pain, swelling or other concerning symptoms develop.
A strong answerI would confirm the pain history, medical and dental history, restorability and the patient’s priorities. I would examine the tooth and surrounding tissues, assess the restoration margins and occlusion, and compare cold sensibility with control teeth; I would interpret the test alongside the history and radiograph. The findings described are consistent with a vital pulp without evident apical disease, but they do not guarantee the pulp will remain healthy. For a restorable tooth with deep caries, I would consider selective caries removal, cleaning the peripheral cavity margins sufficiently for a durable seal while avoiding unnecessary excavation close to the pulp. I would explain the risk of exposure and possible future endodontic treatment, obtain consent, place an appropriate definitive restoration and arrange review based on the clinical situation.
That is a MySummaries station, filled with operative dentistry material. Yours is written from your own notes. Start free
What to learn from the feedback: separate the peripheral seal from the deepest part of the lesion. Saying “remove all caries” without qualification may imply avoidable excavation near the pulp; saying “leave the caries” without explaining the margins and seal is equally incomplete. Describe the aim and the reason for the technique, then acknowledge that clinical findings may change the plan.
The model answer does not promise that a vital pulp will remain vital. It explains the current evidence, the conservative intent and the contingency. In your own practice answer, add the relevant details from your course notes about the restorative material and any local guidance you are expected to follow.
Station 2: Class II posterior composite
Question: You are restoring a proximal lesion in a mandibular first molar. Explain your preparation, isolation and restorative sequence, including how you will assess the contact and margins.
This station tests whether you can connect the restoration’s intended shape with the steps used to achieve it. Explain how you will see and control the field, protect adjacent structures, build a proximal wall and check the finished restoration. Avoid reciting a fixed cavity design without considering the lesion and remaining tooth structure.
Examiner
You are restoring a proximal lesion in a mandibular first molar. Explain your preparation, isolation and restorative sequence, including how you will assess the contact and margins.
You linked the access to the lesion and avoided describing an unnecessarily extensive preparation.
ImproveMention assessment of the remaining marginal ridge and any unsupported tissue before deciding how far to extend.
You prioritised a controlled, dry field and protection of the adjacent tooth.
ImproveState how you will manage moisture if isolation is not reliable before proceeding with adhesive steps.
You described the matrix and wedge sequence, but did not say how you would verify the contact after removal of the matrix.
ImproveDescribe checking contact, contour and the gingival margin, then correcting any overhang or open contact.
You included finishing and occlusal checks but gave little detail about what you would reassess with the patient.
ImproveInclude interproximal cleaning, occlusion and post-operative advice appropriate to the case.
A strong answerI would confirm the diagnosis, assess the lesion and remaining tooth structure, and plan a conservative access that removes diseased tissue while preserving sound structure. I would obtain effective isolation, commonly with rubber dam where suitable, and protect the adjacent tooth during proximal access. After caries removal and assessment of the cavity, I would place a sectional matrix and wedge, checking that the matrix adapts at the gingival margin and can create an appropriate proximal contour. I would follow the adhesive system and restorative material instructions, place and cure the composite in a controlled sequence, then remove the matrix and inspect the marginal seal, contour and contact. I would finish and polish, check interproximal cleaning and occlusion, and explain any expected short-term sensitivity and when the patient should return.
What to learn from the feedback: “place a matrix” is not the end of the explanation. Say what it is there to achieve: adaptation at the gingival margin and a suitable proximal contour and contact. Then state how you will check those features after removing it. The appropriate matrix system and restorative sequence depend on the case and the material’s instructions, so use the method taught in your programme rather than claiming there is only one acceptable system.
If the examiner asks what you would do if a reliable dry field cannot be maintained, do not press on with adhesive steps as if nothing has changed. Explain that you would reassess whether the procedure can be carried out predictably, consider ways to improve isolation or modify the plan, and discuss the options with the patient.
Station 3: Pain after a posterior composite
Question: A patient returns with pain on biting and cold sensitivity after a deep posterior composite restoration. How will you assess the cause and decide what to do next?
This is a reasoning station, not a prompt to diagnose a “high filling” from one symptom. Start by clarifying onset, duration, triggers and progression. Then examine the restoration and tooth, use appropriate comparative tests, and consider pulpal, periodontal, occlusal and structural explanations before choosing management.
Examiner
A patient returns with pain on biting and cold sensitivity after a deep posterior composite restoration. How will you assess the cause and decide what to do next?
You asked about the pain trigger and timing but initially focused on occlusal trauma.
ImproveCompare brief sensitivity with lingering or spontaneous pain, and ask about biting, release, sleep disturbance and progression.
You included occlusion and sensibility testing, but the sequence of examination was not explicit.
ImproveInspect the restoration and tooth, assess periodontal tissues and percussion, and compare appropriate tests with control teeth.
You suggested adjustment before explaining how findings would support that intervention.
ImproveOnly adjust if examination indicates a premature contact; match further treatment to the pulpal, apical or structural diagnosis.
You explained that the patient should return if symptoms persist but did not name concerning changes.
ImproveGive clear advice to seek reassessment for worsening pain, swelling or other new concerning symptoms.
A strong answerI would ask when the pain began, whether it is improving or worsening, what triggers it, how long cold sensitivity lasts, and whether there is spontaneous or night pain. I would inspect the restoration, margins and tooth for cracks or other defects, assess periodontal tissues, percussion and mobility, and check the occlusion; I would use appropriate sensibility tests and compare with control teeth. A premature contact is one possibility, but it would not explain every case, so I would base any adjustment on my findings. Brief sensitivity with reassuring tests may call for monitoring and review, whereas lingering or spontaneous pain, tenderness or other abnormal findings may indicate pulpal or apical disease requiring further assessment and discussion of treatment options. I would explain my findings, agree a plan with the patient and give clear advice to return promptly if pain worsens or swelling develops.
What to learn from the feedback: do not jump from pain on biting to occlusal adjustment. Check the occlusion, but also investigate the pulp, periapical tissues and tooth structure. A cracked tooth, pulpal inflammation, a defective restoration or a premature contact may need different management. Your answer should show how a finding changes your decision.
One phrase in the answer is too compressed to earn full credit in a viva: “I would adjust the filling.” The distinction is whether there is evidence of a premature contact and whether other findings suggest a different cause. The transcript below opens that phrase and gives a more defensible version.
I would ask when the pain started and whether it is improving, then establish the triggers and how long the cold response lasts. I would adjust the filling if it hurts on biting. I would check occlusion, inspect the restoration and tooth, and compare sensibility tests with control teeth. If the pain continues, I would think about the nerve.
I would adjust the filling if it hurts on biting.
Pain on biting alone does not establish a premature contact. The answer skips assessment of the occlusion and other possible causes.
Say: I would check the occlusion and adjust only if there is a premature contact. I would also assess the pulp, periapical tissues and tooth structure, then base further treatment on the findings.Make the answer more precise on a second attempt
Use the same order each time: history, findings, interpretation, plan, contingency. Keep your opening concise, then expand when the examiner asks “why?”. For example, if a cold response is prolonged, say how that changes your working diagnosis and what additional findings you would seek. If the tooth is not restorable, acknowledge that a restorative plan may no longer be appropriate and discuss suitable alternatives with the patient.
After practising, note one phrase that was too vague and replace it with an action plus a reason. “Check the tooth” can become “inspect the restoration margins, assess occlusion and compare sensibility tests with control teeth.” “Monitor” can become “arrange review based on the symptoms and findings, and explain which changes require earlier reassessment.” Those small revisions make an answer easier to follow and defend.
A brief spoken debrief can help you notice whether the examiner feedback identifies a gap in your reasoning or only a missing detail.
You considered a premature contact, but you need to show what finding would justify adjustment before choosing it.
How MySummaries helps
Build a revision board from your own operative dentistry notes, lectures or clinical teaching material. From that board, MySummaries can create oral stations, record an answer and return feedback for practice; use the feedback to identify weak explanations, then compare them with the guidance and criteria used by your own course or examining body. Open MySummaries.