ADC Written (Dental Therapy) common mistakes
ADC Written (Dental Therapy) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a scenario describes a patient with a medical condition (e.g., diabetes, anticoagulant therapy, cardiac disease), the candidate proceeds straight to treatment planning without first stating how the condition changes assessment, consent, or the decision to treat or refer.
Candidates treat medical history as a tick-box formality to be recorded rather than a factor that actively reshapes the treatment plan and scope decisions. Under time pressure they jump to the 'dental' part of the question.
What to do instead
Build a fixed habit: for every scenario, before planning, write one line on 'medical status → risk → modification or referral.' Practise with short cases where the only thing that changes is the medical history, so the adjustment becomes automatic.
The candidate recommends a treatment or makes a diagnosis that sits outside the dental therapy scope of practice, or fails to state when a referral to a dentist or specialist is required.
Scope boundaries are learned as lists but not applied to realistic scenarios; candidates also worry that saying 'refer' looks like avoiding the question, so they attempt to manage everything themselves.
What to do instead
Memorise scope as paired statements ('within scope: X; beyond scope: Y → refer to Z') and rehearse scenario questions where the correct answer is explicitly a referral with a stated reason and urgency.
In questions on periodontal or caries risk assessment, the candidate lists clinical findings but never synthesises them into a risk category or a recall interval, leaving the answer as a data dump.
Assessment is taught as data collection, and candidates reproduce every finding they can recall instead of converting findings into a decision. They also fear committing to a risk level that could be marked wrong.
What to do instead
Practise the 'findings → risk category → recall interval → review criteria' chain as a single four-sentence template, and always close an assessment answer with an explicit risk statement and recall period.
The candidate gives generic oral health advice ('brush twice daily, cut sugar') instead of tailoring instructions to the patient's specific needs, age, dexterity, diet pattern, or cultural context described in the scenario.
Generic advice is easy to recall and feels safe, so candidates default to it rather than engaging with the detail in the vignette; they also underestimate how much marks depend on individualisation.
What to do instead
For each scenario, identify at least two patient-specific factors and attach a concrete modification to each (e.g., reduced dexterity → adapted grip or powered brush; frequent snacking → specific timing change). Treat generic advice as an incomplete answer.
When asked about prevention or behaviour change, the candidate lists techniques (e.g., motivational interviewing, fluoride varnish) without explaining how they would be applied to the patient described, or without stating how effectiveness would be reviewed.
Technique names are memorised as vocabulary, and candidates have not practised translating them into a short, patient-specific plan with a review point.
What to do instead
Use a 'what, how, when reviewed' structure for every preventive or behaviour-change answer: name the intervention, describe exactly how it is delivered to this patient, and state the review interval and success indicator.
The candidate confuses the structure or function of oral tissues (e.g., mislabels tooth surfaces, confuses primary and permanent eruption timing, or misattributes the role of a nerve or salivary gland) in a question that depends on that basic science.
Basic sciences are revised in isolation early in study and not revisited, so detail fades; similar-sounding structures are conflated under exam pressure.
What to do instead
Use spaced retrieval: short weekly self-quizzes on anatomy, eruption chronology, innervation, and salivary function, and always link each fact to a clinical consequence so it is anchored rather than rote.
In microbiology or pathology questions, the candidate names an organism or condition but cannot explain the mechanism linking it to the clinical presentation, or mixes up which conditions are transmissible and what infection-control implications follow.
Candidates memorise names without causal chains, so they cannot reason when a question is phrased as a mechanism or a consequence rather than a definition.
What to do instead
For each key organism or condition, write a one-line chain: organism/process → tissue effect → clinical sign → infection-control or management action. Practise explaining the chain aloud without notes.
The candidate discusses consent, confidentiality, or capacity as abstract principles without applying them to the specific patient (e.g., a minor, an adult with cognitive impairment, or a patient whose family is requesting information).
Ethics and law are studied as definitions, and candidates do not rehearse the step-by-step application to a named scenario, so answers stay at the level of general statements.
What to do instead
Rehearse a consent script: who consents, what information must be given, how understanding is checked, what happens if capacity is in doubt, and who the decision-maker is. Apply it to at least five different patient types.
The candidate ignores cultural safety and communication dimensions in a scenario (e.g., does not consider language, interpreter use, health beliefs, or the impact of the clinician's own assumptions) and answers only the clinical question.
Candidates see cultural safety as a separate topic rather than an embedded part of every clinical interaction, so they do not look for it inside clinical vignettes.
What to do instead
Before answering any scenario, scan for cultural, language, and access factors and add at least one sentence on how communication will be adapted and how the patient's perspective will be elicited and respected.
The candidate answers a 'what would you do next' or 'what should you say' question with a description of clinical technique instead of the actual next action or the words they would use, or omits escalation and documentation steps.
Candidates default to describing procedures because that is what they have practised, and they forget that many questions test professional behaviour, escalation, and record-keeping rather than clinical skill.
What to do instead
For communication and professionalism questions, answer in three moves: the exact next action or spoken statement, the escalation path if the situation does not resolve, and the documentation required. Practise rewriting technique-based answers into this format.