Free practice quiz
Orthodontics Board Prep Course (Ortho): free quiz
10 questions from the program. See your score right away, then unlock the explanation of every answer.
- Question 1 of 10
A 15-year-old patient reports, “My upper teeth stick out.” Records show a convex profile, lip incompetence, Class II molar relationship, 8 mm overjet, mild maxillary crowding, mandibular retrusion, and healthy periodontium. The parent asks for the fastest way to “make the smile look better.” As the orthodontist, which diagnostic synthesis is the best next step before selecting mechanics?
Option D is correct because the chief concern must be converted into skeletal, dental, soft-tissue, and stability-related problems before mechanics are chosen. Option C is tempting but treats esthetics alone and may worsen anchorage, incisor position, or profile if the skeletal Class II pattern is ignored. Option B involves a provider who may be appropriate if surgery is later indicated, but referral should follow orthodontic diagnosis, growth assessment, and treatment-objective development. Option D may be restorative care in other contexts, but reshaping incisors does not address the overjet, mandibular retrusion, or lip incompetence. The orthodontist should assess, plan within scope, refer when skeletal or interdisciplinary limits require it, and document the problem list and objectives.
- Question 2 of 10
A 16-year-old patient presents for comprehensive orthodontic evaluation. Extraoral photographs show excessive gingival display on smile, mild lip incompetence, and a convex profile. Intraoral photographs show Class II molar tendency, increased overjet, and mild maxillary incisor extrusion. The family asks whether braces alone can correct the smile. What is the best next orthodontic decision?
D is correct. Photographs identify esthetic clues, but diagnosis requires correlation with clinical examination and cephalometrics before deciding intrusion, camouflage, growth modification, or surgical consultation. A is tempting because extrusion may cause gingival display, but treating from one smile view risks wrong mechanics. B may be appropriate if skeletal vertical maxillary excess is confirmed, but the orthodontist should not send directly for surgery without full records and shared planning. C addresses overjet but ignores vertical and profile findings. ASSESS records systematically; INTERVENE only after diagnosis; REFER to oral surgery if skeletal discrepancy warrants; DOCUMENT photographic, clinical, and cephalometric rationale.
- Question 3 of 10A 13-year-old patient presents for comprehensive orthodontic evaluation. The panoramic radiograph shows the unerupted maxillary left canine crown superimposed over the lateral incisor root, an indistinct lateral incisor root outline, and normal eruption of the contralateral canine. There is mild maxillary crowding and no pain or swelling. What is the best next orthodontic decision?
C is correct: panoramic overlap and an indistinct incisor root make ectopic canine position and possible root resorption a 3D localization problem; limited-field CBCT is justified when it will change management. A is tempting for interceptive care, but primary canine extraction alone may be inadequate when resorption is suspected. A risks uncontrolled mechanics and further root damage because panoramic films poorly define buccolingual position. A describes surgical/pathology actions beyond the orthodontist’s definitive role and is not indicated without diagnostic workup.
Practitioner Action: Assess eruption path and resorption risk; intervene with indicated imaging and mechanics planning; refer to oral surgery/pathology when needed; document findings and consultations. - Question 4 of 10
A 12-year-old patient presents with Class II molar relationship, increased overjet, lower anterior facial height excess, steep mandibular plane, lip incompetence, and an anterior open-bite tendency. Cervical vertebral maturation suggests remaining pubertal growth. The parent asks whether routine Class II correction will improve the profile. Which treatment-planning response best accounts for the craniofacial growth pattern?
D is correct: hyperdivergent, clockwise mandibular rotation worsens open bite, profile convexity, and Class II camouflage limits; vertical control modifies goals. C is tempting for Class II correction but extrusion can worsen clockwise rotation and bite opening. A involves the correct provider for surgery, but definitive orthognathic surgery is generally delayed until growth completion and requires interdisciplinary planning. B ignores periodontal, profile, and stability risks from excessive expansion/proclination.
ASSESS growth direction and rotation; INTERVENE with vertical control; REFER surgical cases after growth assessment; DOCUMENT limits and informed consent. - Question 5 of 10
A 10-year 8-month-old girl presents with a convex profile, bilateral full-step Class II molar relationship, increased overjet, and no periodontal concerns. Her lateral cephalogram shows cervical vertebral maturation stage CS3; hand-wrist film shows the pubertal growth spurt is beginning. The parent asks whether treatment should wait until she is older. What is the best orthodontic decision?
CS3 indicates the patient is near peak mandibular growth, so B is best: orthopedic Class II correction is most defensible when skeletal maturity indicators show remaining growth. A is tempting, but chronologic age alone is a poor timing guide. D may be appropriate for a nongrowing severe skeletal Class II patient, but surgery is not the first decision for a growing child and would be performed by the surgeon, not the orthodontist. C is outside orthodontic scope and not indicated without medical abnormality. Review Skeletal Maturity Indicators — focus on correlating CVM stage with growth potential and documenting timing rationale.
- Question 6 of 10
An 8-year-old in early mixed dentition has a single maxillary central incisor in anterior crossbite with adequate overbite, mild space available, and a reproducible mandibular functional shift on closure. Periodontal tissues are healthy. The parents ask whether to wait for comprehensive treatment in adolescence. What is the best orthodontic decision?
C is correct: a dental anterior crossbite with functional shift in mixed dentition warrants simple interceptive correction to remove displacement and reduce incisor trauma risk. B is tempting because many mixed-dentition findings are monitored, but a functional shift is an indication to intervene. A describes a surgeon’s role for true severe skeletal discrepancy, not this dental problem. A is within another dental provider’s procedural scope, but extraction is biologically inappropriate and destabilizing. ASSESS space, shift, and incisor inclination; INTERVENE with limited orthodontic correction; REFER only if skeletal/pathologic findings exceed orthodontic scope; DOCUMENT occlusion, risks, consent, and response.
- Question 7 of 10
A 15-year-old patient presents for orthodontic consultation with increased overjet, convex profile, and Class II molar relationships. A lateral cephalometric tracing shows ANB 7°, normal SNA, reduced SNB, and a questionable Frankfort horizontal plane because porion and orbitale are difficult to identify. The candidate must decide how to use these cephalometric findings in treatment planning.
C is tempting because surgery can correct severe skeletal Class II, but osteotomy planning is not justified from one angle and requires interdisciplinary evaluation. D overweights ANB and ignores landmark and plane error. B is best: uncertain porion/orbitale should be retraced or verified, then ANB should be interpreted with SNB, Wits, vertical pattern, dental compensation, and facial findings. A misassigns the orthodontic treatment-planning role; radiology consultation may help image interpretation, not extraction decisions. Practitioner action: assess landmark reliability, intervene with repeat analysis, refer to OMFS only if a surgical pathway is indicated, and document uncertainty.
- Question 8 of 10
A 24-year-old patient seeks orthodontic camouflage for a convex Class II pattern. Records show ANB 6°, overjet 7 mm, mild mandibular crowding, U1-SN 116°, IMPA 101°, and thin mandibular labial periodontal support. The patient declines orthognathic surgery after informed discussion. Which treatment-planning conclusion best integrates the incisor position and periodontal risk?
C is tempting for mild crowding, but both arches are already proclined and thin labial support increases dehiscence risk. A is a valid provider pathway when skeletal correction is desired, but the patient has declined surgery; the orthodontist should still present realistic camouflage limits. D is correct: proclined incisors are dental compensations, so camouflage should avoid further labial movement and use anchorage-controlled retraction if feasible. B recognizes a periodontal provider’s role, but grafting does not create unlimited orthodontic envelope; movement must remain biologically conservative.
- Question 9 of 10
A 13-year-old patient treated for Class II division 1 malocclusion has serial lateral cephalograms taken 18 months apart. Overjet improved from 8 mm to 3 mm after fixed appliances and Class II elastics. The family asks whether the correction was mainly growth or tooth movement. As the orthodontist reviewing treatment response, which superimposition approach best supports a defensible change analysis?
D is tempting because cranial base shows overall skeletal change, but it cannot localize dental movement within each jaw. A is a wrong-provider distractor: surgeons may manage indicated orthognathic surgery, but this retrospective orthodontic change analysis is within orthodontic scope. C is correct: cranial base assesses overall growth/displacement, while maxillary and mandibular regional superimpositions separate tooth movement from skeletal change. B is clinically unstable because the occlusal plane changes with treatment and growth. ASSESS serial records; INTERVENE by selecting appropriate superimpositions; REFER only if skeletal discrepancy needs surgical consultation; DOCUMENT growth versus tooth-movement findings.
- Question 10 of 10
A 14-year-old patient presents for orthodontic consultation. Records show a full-cusp Class II molar relationship on the right, Class I molar relationship on the left, asymmetric canine relationships, mild mandibular midline deviation, normal overjet, and a balanced soft-tissue profile. The parent asks whether the Angle classification alone means the patient needs jaw surgery. What is the best board-style interpretation and next planning step?
Angle classification describes sagittal dental relationships; it does not identify whether the discrepancy is dental, skeletal, functional, or asymmetric. B is tempting because surgery can be appropriate for true skeletal discrepancies, but referral based on Angle class alone oversteps diagnostic evidence. A is correct: a subdivision pattern requires integration of molars, canines, midlines, skeletal records, and soft tissue before mechanics or referral. D is plausible orthodontic mechanics, but unilateral elastics without diagnosis may worsen midlines, occlusal canting, or anchorage. A ignores the asymmetric Class II finding and underclassifies the malocclusion.
See why each answer is right or wrong
Enter your email to unlock the explanation of every question, free.