Some of you appear to believe that the new Bench test procedures may not be so bad. I must tell you that I think the new procedures pretty much guarantee that virtually no one will obtain a passing score on the revised exam. Here is the entire text of the exam revisions:
Amend Section 1041 of Division 10 Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations to read as follows:
(a) Written Examination. The written examination required by Section 1628.2 of the Code shall be that given by the National Board of Dental Examiners. An applicant shall submit to the board evidence of successful completion of said examination. Pursuant to section 1628.2 of the Code, a copy of the applicant's scores on this written examination must have been received at the board's principal office by July 12, 2004. An original of the applicant's scores must be received with the application to take the Restorative Technique examination requested.
(b) Restorative Techniques. Each foreign-trained examinee shall demonstrate his or her skill in restorative techniques in the presence of the board members or examiners appointed for that purpose. Each examinee shall complete to the satisfaction of the board all assigned restorations.
(1) Assignments. The applicant shall be given an assignment to complete in each of the following categories, as described below.
(A) Amalgam. Each applicant shall prepare and restore a Class II amalgam on a tooth and surface assigned at the time of examination.
(B) Cast Restorations. Each applicant shall prepare two artificial teeth from among those provided by the manufacturer of the typodont specified in subsection (b)(2), for single unit cast restorations, or as abutments for a fixed bridge. The preparation assignments for all teeth to be prepared will be given at the start of the examination and will be selected from the following: MOD onlay, 3/4 crown, 7/8 crown, full metal crown, full all-porcelain crown, or full porcelain-fused-to-metal crown.
(C) Composite. Each applicant shall prepare and/or restore one or more Class II, III, or IV composite restoration(s) on tooth or teeth and surface(s) assigned at the time of the examination, with the tooth or teeth mounted in a typodont specified in subsection (b)(2).
(2) Equipment. The applicant shall provide a crown and bridge typodont which shall be used for the examination in restorative techniques. The typodont shall be the D95SDP-200 Dental Study Model by Kilgore International, Inc. The typodont shall be suitable for mounting either on a dental chair with a headrest bar or on a simulator, whichever is provided by the dental school where the examination is administered. The mounting on a dental chair shall be a Columbia aluminum head, model number AH-1C-1 or its equivalent with removable soft rubber facings simulating the cheeks. Upper and lower members shall be sealed with plaster. The typodont shall be equilibrated in centric relation jaw position prior to the examination, with at least four points of centric occlusal stops on each side of the typodont. The candidate shall also provide addressed mailing materials, as is appropriate for the typodont, with postage prepaid, for the return of the typodont to the candidate after the examination.
(3) Time Period Allowed. The examination shall be a total of eight hours in length. This time period includes approval time for the typodont and equilibration time for disapproved typodonts.
(c) Further Examination. An examinee who successfully completes the restorative technique examination is eligible to take the remaining examinations required by Section 1636(c) of the Code. All rules applicable to such examinations and the grading thereof contained in Article 3 of this subchapter shall apply to examinees who are foreign dental school graduates.
(d) Passing Grades. A foreign dental school graduate shall be deemed to have passed the examination if he or she achieves a score of at least 75% on at least two of the three sections of the examination, and an overall score of at least 75% composite average for all three sections of the examination scored as a whole.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 1614, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Section 1628.2, Business and Professions Code.
Read those requirments carefully and ask yourself if you think you can complete a class II amalgam, an MOD onlay, a PFM crown and then two more composite preparations in 8 hours. Do any of you really think that the changes above give you a better chance of passing the Bench test than the current format? I know that the laboratory section of the exam was problematic for many candidates and some of you may think that a composite preparation instead of the laboratory section is an improvement. If it was only substituting the composite preparation for the laboratory section, then maybe it would have given you all a better chance at passing the Bench test. But these revisions are a whole lot more than just performing a composite preparation instead of a tricky laboratory section of the old exam. As it is written above, the entire exam must be performed on a mannequin. But the scoring of your preparations will surely be done with the typodont removed from the mannequin. This whole revision stinks and I think it puts you all at such disadvantage that virtually no one will pass the Bench test in the final three years of the exam.
You should all fight this change. I believe that the Dental Board did not follow the proper procedures in the drafting and adoption of the Bench test revisions. I think we can get the revisions repealed if we work together. I know that some of you are afraid that if you protest too loudly to the Dental Board that you may suffer the consequence of being blacklisted when you finally get a chance to sit for the Bench test. I can only tell you all that you shouldn't worry about that happening. It doesn't matter whether you are US citizen who has lived in California for the last 10 years or whether you just recently celebrated Diwali in Bangalore; you all have the right to expect a fair and equal chance to pass the Restorative Technique examination. For even the best clinical dentists amongst all of the qualified candidates, I doubt that even one in 100 would pass the revised test procedures. These new test procedures are nothing more than a cruel and subversive attempt to make sure that there are no more Bench test dentists in California.
Tomorrow I will post another letter that I hope you will all send to the Dental Board to demand that the Bench test procedures remain unchanged through the end of 2008.
Scott
