Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Florida Dental Laws and Rules exam · Free practice questions
Five original Florida FDLR practice questions on licensure, renewal and CE, each answered on this page with a rationale and a source.
Last updated 2026-07-27
Question 1 of 5
Answer C: The contract is void as contrary to public policy and the arrangement constitutes a third-degree felony.
Section 466.0285, F.S., prohibits nondentists from controlling pricing, refunds, or clinical personnel selection. Violations are third-degree felonies and the contracts are void.
Common trap: Relying on more permissive "corporate practice" models from other states like California where management companies have broader latitude.
Question 2 of 5
Answer C: She is ineligible due to disciplinary action within the preceding five years.
Under s. 456.0145, F.S., an applicant for MOBILE endorsement must have faced no disciplinary action in the 5 years immediately preceding the application. A formal reprimand is disciplinary action. A. is only for qualified applicants. B. and D. are not provided for in the statute.
Common trap: Assuming only "serious" discipline like suspension or revocation counts toward the five-year lookback.
Source: s. 456.0145, F.S. — Mobile Opportunity by Interstate Licensure Endorsement (MOBILE) Act
Question 3 of 5
Answer A: Deficient, because CPR/BLS training must include an in-person hands-on skills assessment to be accepted.
Rule 64B5-12.013 requires CPR training to be in person or via a blended learning course with hands-on skill competency completed in person; online-only training is not accepted. Furthermore, CPR does not count toward the biennial hour totals (30 or 24).
Common trap: Believing online-only certification is sufficient due to third-party vendor claims, or assuming CPR counts toward the 24-hour requirement.
Question 4 of 5
Answer B: A third-degree felony for knowingly employing a person beyond their scope.
Section 466.026(1)(c), F.S., specifically targets the employing dentist with a third-degree felony for such unauthorized delegation.
Common trap: Assuming only the unlicensed worker faces criminal charges while the employer only faces board discipline.
Question 5 of 5
Answer B: The Board may excuse the practice requirement based on documented hardship.
Rule 64B5-2.0150, F.A.C. allows the Board to excuse the full-time practice requirement (for scores >365 days old) for hardship, specifically defined to include the care of a parent with a serious health condition. A. ignores the hardship relief. C. applies to non-accredited graduates. D. is not a standard relief mechanism.
Common trap: Believing the 1,200-hour practice rule for stale scores is absolute and carries no hardship relief.
Free · no signup
The full free practice test samples every area and shows which ones to review first.
Take the free 15-question FDLR practice test